Technical Report TR05-07 November 2005

riculturalAg Experiment Station

College of

Agricultural Sciences Department of

Soil and Crop Sciences Cooperative Extension

Survey of Irrigation, Nutrient and Pesticide Management Practices

in Colorado

T. A. Bauder and R.M. Waskom Extension Specialists

Department of Soil and Crop Sciences Colorado State University

Survey of Irrigation, Nutrient and Pesticide Management Practices in Colorado

**Mention of a trademark or proprietary product does not constitute endorsement by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station.**

Colorado State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and complies with all Federal and Colorado State laws, regulations, and executive orders regarding affirmative action requirements in all programs. The Office of Equal Opportunity is located in 101 Student Services. In order to assist Colorado State University in meeting its affirmative action responsibilities, ethnic minorities, women, and other protected class members are encouraged to apply and to so identify themselves.

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this study was provided by the Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater

Protection Program with the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

We thank Marshall Frasier for his help in designing the survey, and the farmer review

panel that helped test the survey instrument and provided useful comments on the wording

and presentation of questions in the survey.

Special thanks are extended to Stacy Romero for his many tedious hours of data

entry, Tyrell Fickenscher for generating countless tables of summary information, and to

Debbie Fields and Kierra Jewell for their help in laying out this publication. Thanks are also

extended to Lance Fretwell of the Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service for their work in

identifying the sample and generating the mailing list for the survey. Joel Schneekloth and

James Pritchett provided review and editorial comments of this report.

Finally, we express gratitude and appreciation to the hundreds of producers in

Colorado who donated their valuable time to respond to the survey.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... i.

Table of Contents..................................................................................................................... ii.

Figure Index ............................................................................................................................ iii.

Table Index ............................................................................................................................. iv.

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 4

Survey Design........................................................................................................................... 5

Survey Response....................................................................................................................... 8

Survey Results ........................................................................................................................ 11

Farm Resources................................................................................................................... 14

Land ................................................................................................................................ 14

Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 16

Farm Products ..................................................................................................................... 17

Crops ............................................................................................................................... 17

Livestock......................................................................................................................... 19

Irrigation Systems and Components ................................................................................... 19

Irrigation Management........................................................................................................ 21

Pest and Pesticide Management.......................................................................................... 31

Questions about the Representative Field........................................................................... 34

Irrigation Management on the Representative Field........................................................... 37

Factors Affecting Management Changes............................................................................ 40

Water Concerns................................................................................................................... 44

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 49

References............................................................................................................................... 50

iii

FIGURE INDEX

Figure 1. Comparison of Colorado farm size as reported by NASS to survey mailing list

farm size.................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2. Regional grouping of survey responses by county given......................................... 9

Figure 3. Respondent's farm acreage compared to NASS farm size. .................................... 10

Figure 4. Comparison between NASS reported and survey respondents with regard to

average irrigated acres within farm sizes.............................................................. 11

Figure 6. Education level of respondents............................................................................... 12

Figure 5. Gross farm sales of respondents. ............................................................................ 13

Figure 7. Respondents' farmstead well frequency and median depth.................................... 17

Figure 8. Percent of respondents that report growing crop types, averaged across regions. 18

Figure 9. Percent of respondents reporting total livestock size categories. ........................... 19

Figure 10. Percent of acreage covered by respondents' irrigation systems. .......................... 20

Figure 11. Irrigation scheduling methods used by respondents............................................. 22

Figure 12. Percent of respondent's irrigated acreage soil sampled. ....................................... 26

Figure 13. Manure use among respondents by region. .......................................................... 27

Figure 14. Nutrient credits used by respondents.................................................................... 28

Figure 15. Percent of respondents using an irrigation water nitrate credit. ........................... 29

Figure 16. Type of pesticides used by respondents. .............................................................. 32

Figure 17. Percent of respondents using pest scouting and/or outside pest advice. .............. 34

Figure 18. Reliability of the water source on the representative field as measured by having

a full supply of water. ........................................................................................... 36

Figure 19. Reasons given for determing irrigation application amount by primary water

source on representative field. .............................................................................. 38

Figure 20. Percent of respondents reporting any management change within last five years41

Figure 21. Type of management practice changed within last five years.............................. 41

Figure 22. Sources of crop or irrigation information used by respondents. .......................... 42

Figure 23. Factors limiting respondents’ crop production or irrigation decisions................. 43

Figure 24. Percent of respondents’ having any water quality concerns. ............................... 45

Figure 25. Respondents’ water quality concerns by water use (state average). .................... 46

iv

TABLE INDEX

Table 1. Number of surveys mailed by region and farm size. ................................................. 7

Table 2. Percentage of usable surveys returned by region and farm size. ............................. 10

Table 3. General characteristics of entire farm. ..................................................................... 15

Table 4. Irrigation system upgrade implementation anywhere on respondent’s farm........... 21

Table 5. Irrigation scheduling methods used anywhere on farm. .......................................... 23

Table 7. Determination of manure application rates.............................................................. 28

Table 9. Adoption of pest control and pesticide best management practices (BMPs) by

respondents using pesticides. ................................................................................... 32

Table 10. Reasons for amount applied at each irrigation....................................................... 38

Table 11. Irrigation record keeping on representative field................................................... 40

Table 12. Information requested from CSU to make water management decisions. ............ 44

Table 13. Irrigation water analysis and concerns about quality of water on farm................. 46

Table 14. Concerns about water on farm and/or in county.................................................... 48

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Understanding currently used farming practices, information needs, management

constraints, and water concerns of irrigating producers in Colorado is essential for

conducting relevant research and outreach. To update our knowledge, we conducted a

survey of irrigation, nutrient, and pest management practices adopted by producers. This

survey was also intended as a five year follow-up to an irrigation management survey

conducted in 1997. The survey was mailed in late 2001 to 3,268 irrigators identified through

the Colorado Agricultural Statistics annual crop production survey. Approximately 40% of

the surveys were returned with 37% being useable responses.

The survey instrument was divided into nine main sections. These nine sections

include; General Farm Information, Irrigation System(s) on Whole Farm, Fertilizer

Management on Whole Farm, Pest Management on Whole Farm, Representative Irrigated

Field, 2001 Irrigation Management of the Representative Field, Water and Crop Management

Decisions on Whole Farm, Water Concerns and Personal Information. Each respondent was

asked a total of forty-two questions designed to provide detailed information about the

specific topic of each section. A copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix B.

The sample of Colorado irrigators that returned our survey represented a highly

experienced group with an average of 30 years of irrigation experience. Our sample was also

well educated, with 70% having some post-secondary education. The majority of

respondents (65%) reported annual gross farm sales of less than $100,000 annually.

Approximately 44% of respondents supplemented this farm income with off-farm

employment. Although there was much regional variability, the average whole-farm size for

the sample was 1,174 acres (median was 350 acres). The acreage sampled represented

approximately 400,000 of the state’s irrigated acres.

Surface water accounted for slightly over 70% of the irrigation water used by all

respondents, with the balance coming from groundwater. However, many respondents rely

on water from both surface and aquifer sources. Crops grown varied regionally, as would be

expected in Colorado, but the most frequently irrigated crop statewide was alfalfa or some

other type of hay, with corn second. The irrigation systems used also varied by region of the

state and water source with siphon tubes and flood dominating the mountains and west slope

and center pivots irrigating much of the High Plains. The majority of these systems had been

upgraded with some improvement intended to improve their efficiency and or uniformity.

2

The reliability of water sources varied greatly by regions. However, only 46% of

respondents described their water supply as highly reliable, providing adequate water ten

years out of ten. The lowest reliability was reported by respondents from the Mountains and

the Arkansas Valley. Ground water users tended to report higher water reliability, as

expected. Likewise, water availability, drought and urban competition rated high as water

concerns for producers both on their farm and in their county. We also found that 26% of

respondents have concerns about the quality of their water for crop production, household, or

livestock use. Irrigation water quality was the listed concern by over a third of these

respondents as the most serious concern. Irrigators in the South Platte (31%) and the

Arkansas Valley (58%) most frequently indicated concern with salinity. Other water quality

concerns that rated high included weed seeds, sediment, and nitrate.

While results varied widely by region and farm demographic, overall we found many

of the common nutrient and pest Best Management Practices are being used. For example,

about half of all Colorado producers used soil test analysis to help determine their fertilizer

rate, with the percentage reaching close to 80% in some regions. However, crediting of other

nutrient sources such as past manure applications, legume crops, or irrigation water was

mentioned less frequently. Among pest and pesticide management practices, field scouting

was used by over half of the respondents (53%), with a higher adoption rate among farmers

also reporting pesticide use. A majority of respondents also said they used integrated pest

management (IPM) practices such as clean/pure seed, cultivation for weed control, and crop

rotation. In contrast, use of other IPM practices such as biological controls and pest

forecasting was not widely reported, as these practices have limited availability in Colorado.

Adoption of the irrigation water management practices of water application time and

amount were also assessed. Respondents reported using experience and crop appearance

more often than using accumulated crop water use (ET) or available soil moisture to time

irrigations. These more precise techniques were selected by about a third of the respondents,

but more frequently by ground water users who have more opportunity to control water

delivery. Likewise, ground water users were about twice as likely to adjust water

application amounts at each irrigation than surface water users. Still, “same amount each

time” was chosen most frequently (48%) as the method to determine how much water should

be applied among all respondents. The results also indicate that irrigation record keeping is

not common, as only slightly over 40% of respondents reported they knew the amount of

water applied to their representative field, and less than one-quarter of respondents indicated

3

keeping records of water application. Less than 10% reported accurate knowledge of how

much water their crop used in the previous (2001) growing season.

The information sources growers use for management decisions was assessed.

Respondents reported using institutional sources of information (Cooperative Extension,

NRCS) less than crop input dealers or other private sources of information. Use of paid

consultants for crop production advice varied widely by region, but was only used by 13% of

respondents statewide. Besides information source, we also learned what factors may limit

producers’ decision making. Water availability, followed by equipment cost and

management time, were the most frequently chosen factors that limit decisions. We also

asked what information that CSU could provide to help irrigating crop producers in making

water management decisions. The top two categories given by respondents could be

categorized into irrigation system management and water crop water use

This survey report provides insight into how Colorado producers are managing their

irrigation water, nutrients and pesticides. As these inputs become increasingly scarce and

expensive, Colorado producers look to a variety of information sources, including their land

grant university to help them improve their efficiency. This report provides information on

the practices and areas of Colorado with research and extension needs and can be used to

focus efforts to best serve Colorado producers.

All survey results are detailed by region within Appendix A. County level data is

available by contacting the authors.

4

INTRODUCTION

Supplies of clean and abundant water have been a concern for humans as long as they

have inhabited Colorado. A high percentage of Colorado’s water is diverted for agricultural

purposes and this sector is increasingly asked to conserve both the quality and quantity of

this water for other uses. Improved irrigation, nutrient, and pesticide management practices

to protect water resources are often referred to as Best Management Practices or “BMPs”.

For the most part, Colorado producers are encouraged to voluntarily adopt BMPs without

state or federal mandates. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension and the

Colorado Department of Agriculture developed and published many of these BMPs with

significant input from producers, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS), the agricultural industry, and others, in several agriculturally important watersheds

throughout the state. The goal of these BMPs is to promote conservation and prevent

degradation of water quality through voluntary adoption of BMPs by Colorado farmers.

Significant resources have been used to develop, encourage, and extend BMPs to

producers for irrigated crop production. Until recently, there has been little quantified

information on how many Colorado producers are using BMPs and where they are being

used. Therefore, one objective of this work was to obtain quantifiable information about

specific BMP’s producers are using that maintain their productivity while protecting the

environment. This information is necessary to conduct relevant educational programming,

research and training in the areas and topics where it is most needed. The data is also helpful

in documenting the progress that Colorado producers are making in protecting water quality

and to identify where more effort is needed. This survey was also designed as a five-year

follow-up to Survey of Irrigation Management conducted in 1997 (Frasier et al., 1999).

Another objective was to assess whether growers have changed management practices in the

five years since the first survey was conducted, to gain more detailed information than the

first survey was able to acquire, and to explain questions brought up by the first survey.

However, the primary purpose of this document is to report the latest survey results and few

comparisons are made to the previous survey. These comparisons will be reserved for

subsequent publications.

5

SURVEY DESIGN

The survey instrument was divided into nine main sections. These nine sections

include; General Farm Information, Irrigation System(s) on Whole Farm, Fertilizer

Management on Whole Farm, Pest Management on Whole Farm, Representative Irrigated

Field, Irrigation Management of the Representative Field, Water and Crop Management

Decisions on Whole Farm, Water Concerns, and Personal Information. Each respondent was

asked a total of forty-two questions designed to provide detailed information about the

specific topic of each section. A copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix B.

The purpose of the first section, General Farm Information, was to gain general

information about the respondents’ farming operations. These questions included such topics

as county location, total size of farm, major farm enterprises (crops and livestock), proportion

of land irrigated, origin of irrigation water and well depth.

The second section, Irrigation System(s) on Whole Farm, consisted of a series of

questions about the types of irrigation system used on the entire farming operation. The

respondent was specifically asked the percentage of acres serviced by each specific irrigation

system, the irrigation components they used, and the primary and secondary scheduling

method(s) used to determine when to irrigate.

The third section, Fertilizer Management on Whole Farm, asked each survey

respondent specific questions about their fertilizer management practices. The respondent

was first asked about fertilizer management practices, then whether or not they use manure or

effluent for fertilizer, and if so, how they determine the application rate. The respondent is

then asked for possible reasons why they might reduce their nitrogen fertilizer, the

percentage of their irrigated acreage that was soil tested in 2001 and all possible methods

they used for nitrogen fertilizer application.

The fourth section, Pest Management on Whole Farm, asked two questions about the

respondents’ pest management practices. The first question asked the respondent to mark all

of the pest management practices they routinely use. The second question asked each

respondent how their pest management practices were carried out.

The fifth section of the survey, Representative Irrigated Field Questions, asked the

survey respondent to focus their answers on “one irrigated field that is most representative of

their irrigated farm acres.” The respondent was then directed to describe the soil texture, the

crops grown over the previous three years, the yield and the irrigated acreage on that

6

representative field. The respondent was then asked to describe the water source for that

irrigated field, how many years out of ten they have had a full water supply, the irrigation

application system used on the representative field and when that system was installed.

The sixth section of the survey instrument, 2001 Irrigation Management of the

Representative Field, deals with the same irrigated field that was described in the fifth

section. The questions in this section focus on specific irrigation management techniques for

that irrigated field. This section begins by asking what method the respondent uses to

determine the amount of water to be applied at each application, how many applications were

made throughout 2001, quantity of water applied during the 2001 growing season, whether or

not the respondent knows the quantity of water used by the crop on the representative field

and if they have changed any of their management practices on the representative field in the

last five years.

The seventh section, Water and Crop Management Decisions on Whole Farm,

requested more general information about management practices used on the entire farm.

This section asked each respondent to list irrigation and production information sources,

factors that limit irrigation and production decisions on their farm and what additional or new

information from Colorado State University would be most helpful for making water

management decisions.

The eighth section, Water Concerns, asks specific water management questions. This

section asks whether or not the respondent has ever had their irrigation water analyzed, if

they have any water quality concerns on their farm and general concerns about water on their

farm or in their county.

The ninth section, Personal Information, requested that the respondents provide

selected demographic information about themselves. This included their years of irrigation

experience, education level, annual gross farm sales and whether or not the respondent has

another job off the farm.

An advisory committee consisting of research and extension representatives from

major irrigation-related disciplines at Colorado State University was consulted throughout

the design of the survey instrument. Additionally, a preliminary draft of the survey was

tested on a group of nine irrigating producers who reviewed it for language and difficulty and

to determine the completion time.

The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provided names for the

mailing. NASS was used to obtain a representative sample of all irrigators in the state.

7

Irrigators were drawn from the sampling frame for the Colorado Agricultural Statistics

annual crop production survey, and limited to those producers who irrigated any crops, and

had at least 40 acres of cropland. These criteria yielded a list of 3,268 addresses distributed

across the state as shown in Table 1. Appendix Tables A31 and A32 detail this distribution

at the county level. The surveys were mailed on November 30, 2001.

Table 1. Number of surveys mailed by region and farm size. Farm Sizea (acres)

Region Under 100 100 to 249

250 to 499

500 to 999

1000 to 2499

2500 to 4999

Over 5000 All Farms

-------------------- Number of Farms -------------------- S. Platte 151 221 172 177 107 38 30 896 E. Plains 1 17 38 59 118 85 50 368 Ark 30 47 69 48 47 19 23 283 SLV 30 91 116 127 110 27 12 513 Mts 33 78 66 64 80 39 29 389 W. Slope 128 232 173 116 87 38 45 819 Colorado 373 686 634 591 549 246 189 3,268 a Includes all irrigated and dry cropland, pasture, and rangeland. S. Platte = South Platte E. Plains = Eastern Plains Ark = Arkansas Valley SLV = San Luis Valley Mts = Mountains W. Slope = W. Slope

Compared to the 1997 survey (Frasier et al., 1999) fewer (189) surveys were mailed

in 2001 to largest farms (>2,500 acres); more (373) to smallest (<100 acres). However, the

percentage of mailed surveys by farm size compares well to irrigated farm size categories

reported by the 1997 Census of Agriculture Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (USDA-

NASS, 1999) as shown in Figure 1. The only major difference is that we did not mail

surveys to farmers with less than 40 acres of total cropland, as does NASS.

8

6

57

36

11

58

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

50 to 100 100 to 1000 >1000

Farm Size (acres)

% o

f NA

SS F

arm

ers

or S

urve

ys M

aile

d

NASS FarmsMailing list

Figure 1. Comparison of Colorado farm size as reported by NASS

to survey mailing list farm size.

As suggested by Dillman (1978), reminder postcards were sent three and ten days

following the initial mailing of the survey. In his Total Design Method, Dillman suggests

sending the survey again to non-respondents two weeks after initial mailing. However,

because of NASS’s confidentiality requirement, it was not possible to identify who had and

had not responded, so we were unable to mail follow-up surveys.

SURVEY RESPONSE

Over the following 13 months, 1,2271 usable responses were returned. This

represented 37% of the total surveys mailed. Survey responses were received as early as

December 4, 2001 and as late as December 15, 2003. If adjusted for undeliverable surveys

and non-usable (incomplete) returns, the overall response rate was 40%. This was a slightly

lower response, but a similar pattern in response rate among farm sizes as compared to 1997.

9

Figure 2. Regional grouping of survey responses by county given.

To control for the diversity of irrigation and cropping practices in Colorado, survey

responses were grouped into six geographic regions: the South Platte, the Eastern Plains, the

Arkansas Valley, the San Luis Valley, the Mountains, and the Western Slope (Figure 2).

These regions were selected based on known differences in cropping practices, water sources

and management. The South Platte region includes counties obtaining most of their water

from the South Platte River or its alluvial aquifer, whereas the Eastern Plains are

characterized by the primary use of groundwater from the High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer. The

Arkansas Valley is characterized by use of the Arkansas River as the primary source for

irrigation. Note that Baca County, while contiguous with the Arkansas Valley region, was

categorized in the High Plains because the High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer is the primary

water source. The San Luis Valley region obtains water primarily from the Rio Grande River

and the Valley’s unconfined aquifer. The Western Slope gets water primarily from rivers and

streams, such as the Yampa and Colorado. Finally, counties in the Mountain region are

characterized primarily by the use of individual surface diversion from streams and rivers.

10

Table 2. Percentage of usable surveys returned by region and farm size. Farm Sizea (acres)

Region Under 100

100 to 249

250 to 499

500 to 999

1000 to 2499

2500 to 4999

Over 5000

All Farms

------------------------------------ % ------------------------------------ S. Platte 34 48 24 29 32 45 37 35 E. Plains ** 59 24 39 31 25 20 31 Ark 47 49 46 33 32 21 30 40 SLV 47 32 28 31 31 22 8 32 Mts 33 38 47 33 48 44 28 42 W. Slope 58 44 46 36 26 39 18 43

Colorado 45 44 36 32 33 33 24 37 a Includes all irrigated and dry cropland, pasture, and rangeland. ** Five respondents or fewer in category

Response rate across the six regions was relatively similar. The highest response

rates were for the Mountain and Western Slope regions, which had response rates of 42 and

43%, respectively. The lowest response rates were for the Eastern Plains and San Luis

Valley regions, which respectively had 31 and 32% response rates. In looking at the

response rate with regard to the farm size categories, the response rate decreases with

increasing farm size (Table 2). For example, the overall response rate for farms smaller than

100 acres was 45% and response rate for farms over 5000 acres was 23%.

6

24

16 17

22

1512

20 21

1511 13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

50 to 99 100 to219

220 to499

500 to999

1,000 to1,999

> 2000

Total Farm Acreage Categories

% o

f NA

SS F

arm

s o

r Res

pond

ents

NASS Reported Farms Survey Respondants

Figure 3. Respondent's farm acreage compared to NASS farm size.

11

Characteristics of the survey respondents suggest that we obtained a representative

sample of Colorado irrigators. For example, Figure 3 shows the percentage of survey

respondents as compared to farm acreage categories as reported by NASS. This survey had

fewer respondents in the 1,000 to 1,999 and more respondents in the 50 to 99 acreage size

classes, but the others sizes categories were similar. Likewise, the average irrigated acres of

different total farm class compared well to those NASS reported (Figure 4).

499257

106

431

554

865825

458

344

216218

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

50 to 99 100 to219

220 to499

500 to999

1,000 to1,999

2000 +

Total Farm Size (acres)

Ave

rage

Irrig

ated

Acr

es

NASS Reported Farms Survey Respondants

Figure 4. Comparison between NASS reported and

survey respondents with regard to average irrigated acres within farm sizes.

SURVEY RESULTS

Many results in this publication are presented as the average percent of respondents

using a particular practice or having a particular characteristic. These averages are the

simple arithmetic mean of the percentage and are not weighted by the size of the group

categorized. In general, if a question did not have a sufficient number of respondents

(typically < 5) to accurately compare, the result is not provided and the table is footnoted as

such.

12

Respondent Characteristics

Although the questions pertaining to the respondents’ personal characteristics were

asked at the end of the survey, evaluation of these results first can give insight into why

respondents take different actions in managing their enterprises (Table A1). The survey

results show that Colorado irrigators are highly experienced, with an average of 30 years of

irrigation experience. All regions were similar in this regard except the Eastern Plains, which

was slightly lower at 25 years. Major development of irrigation in this region did not occur

until the 1970s. This does not provide the opportunity for producers to have 40 to 50 years

of experience, as observed in the other regions.

High School30%

Some College24% Bachelors

Degree25%

Graduate Degree

13%

Vocational/ Tech Degree

8%

Figure 6. Education level of respondents.

Survey Question How many years of irrigation experience do you have? _______ years

Survey Question Check T your highest level of education.

High School Bachelors degree Some college Graduate or Professional degree Technical/Vocational Degree

13

Statewide, producers’ educational experiences were divided by similar percentages

among those with a high school background, those with some college or vocational degree,

and those holding a college degree (Fig. 6). Seventy percent of the respondents had some

post-secondary education. As expected, differences were found among regions. For

example, the Arkansas Valley had the lowest proportion of graduate degrees (8%), but an

almost equal proportion with a high school education and some college (34 and 30%

respectively). At 31%, the Eastern Plains had the highest proportion of those with a

bachelor’s degree, while the Mountains had the most producers with post-graduate degrees at

18% (Table A1).

Figure 5 and Table A1 provide the respondents’ gross farm sale distribution. For the

entire state, 44% grossed less than $50,000 annually, while only 3% grossed over

$1,000,000. Collectively, 46% of the respondents grossed between $50,000 and $250,000

while 19% grossed between $250,000 and $1,000,000. Regional differences in gross sales

between regions are obvious. On the Eastern Plains 64% of the producers had annual sales

exceeding $100,000, compared to one-quarter of those responding from the Mountains and

Western Slope.

Under $50 K44%

$500 K - $1 Million

3%

Over $1 Million3%

Other6%

$100 K - $249 K

19%

$50 K - $99 K21%

$250 K - $499 K

10%

Figure 5. Gross farm sales of respondents.

Survey Question Check T your estimated annual gross farm sales.

less than $50,000 $250,000 - $499,000 $50,000 - $99,000 $500,000 - $1,000,000 $100,000 - $249,000 over $1,000,000

14

Trends in off-farm employment follow a related pattern. Statewide averages show

that 44% of respondents had off-farm employment. Regions with lower gross sales tended to

have greater off-farm employment. The low-grossing Mountains and Western Slope had the

highest off-farm employment. For irrigators with a job off the farm, 31% of their income

was derived from the farm, ranging from 21% in the San Luis Valley to 43% in the Eastern

Plains.

One notable difference in the respondents’ personal characteristics in this survey’s

from 1997 survey’s respondents (Frasier, et al 1997) was the 10% increase in respondents

that reported having an off-farm job. This is consistent with a 10% increase in responding

farms that reported gross farm sales under $50,000 from 1997 suggesting the 2001-2002

survey had a higher proportion of small farm respondents. Additionally, the percent of

income reported from the farm by all respondents (regardless of off-farm job status),

decreased substantially from 81 to 49% from 1997 suggesting a general downturn in the farm

economy between the two surveys or possibly differences between the populations sampled.

Farm Resources

Land

As expected, farm resources differ greatly by region (Table 3). The average farm size

for the state was 1,174 acres, ranging from 812 acres in the San Luis Valley to 2,698 acres on

the Eastern Plains. The inclusion of a few very large operations in the sample pulls these

averages up so the median farm size (350 acres) is also included to characterize the typical

operation. Significant variation exists in the average cropped area across regions. According

to USDA-NASS (1999) there were approximately 2,942,230 irrigated acres in Colorado in

1998 on 13,430 farms. Our 1,272 usable returned surveys represented 412,963 irrigated

acres. Thus, our survey results represent approximately 12.9% of the state’s irrigated acreage

and 9.5% of the irrigating farmers.

Survey Question Do you have another job off the farm?

� Yes � No What percentage of your net income comes from farming? _______%

15

Statewide, producers leased or rented an average of 14% of their irrigated acres. This was

significantly lower than the 1997 survey where respondents reported renting 29% of their

irrigated acres. In the three mountainous western regions, a much smaller fraction of the

irrigated acres were leased or rented. Higher percentages of rented acres were found in the

regions comprising eastern Colorado.

Table 3. General characteristics of entire farm. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado Farm Sizea (acres) Average 847 2698 1280 812 1345 1014 1174 Median 245 1200 350 511 535 240 350 Cropped Area (acres) Average 565 1107 736 481 374 178 476 Median 167 731 230 285 139 100 160 Irrigated Area (acres) Average 314 530 471 539 291 171 325 Median 150 303 211 320 130 112 150 Irrigated Area Rented (%) 20 21 15 9 10 11 14 Water Source b (average %) Groundwater 25 90 16 42 1 1 22 Surface Water 73 7 82 57 97 95 73 a Includes all irrigated and dry cropland, pasture, and rangeland. b Percentages to not add to 100 because of actual responses given

Survey Question What portion of your irrigated acres are rented or leased from someone else?

________ % OR ________ acres

Survey Question What is the total size of your farm? ________ acres

16

Water Resources

As expected, water sources had the greatest variation across regions. Similar to 1997,

surface water accounted for 73% of the irrigation water used by all respondents with the

balance coming from groundwater (Table 3). Surface water sources supplied nearly all of the

irrigation water in the Mountains and Western Slope regions. The Arkansas and S. Platte

Valleys are also surface water dominated, but groundwater sources are important, accounting

for up to a quarter of the water supply. However, groundwater is relied upon for 42% of the

supply in the San Luis Valley. In contrast to the other regions, farmers on the Eastern Plains

obtained 90% of their irrigation water from a groundwater source.

We also asked respondents to tell us about their water supply for their farmstead.

This question was included to learn how many producers relied upon ground water for their

farm and household water supply and the vulnerability of this supply to surface

contamination. As shown in Figure 7, reliance upon ground water for farmstead uses varies

considerably across the state, with respondents in the Eastern Plains (97%) and the San Luis

Valley (86%) most reliant on ground water. Because a few very deep wells skewed the well

depth average, we report median values in Figure 7. Except for the Eastern Plains, the

median well depth for all regions was less than 100 feet. The San Luis and Arkansas Valleys

have the most shallow and likely vulnerable water supplies with median well depths 40 feet

or less.

Survey Question What is the depth to water in your farmstead well? ______ft No well exists.

Survey Question Approximately what percentage of irrigation water used on your farm comes from the following sources? (allocations should total 100 percent) Groundwater well _____% Surface water _____%

17

180

40

60

36

6650

60

9786

71 69 65

47

68

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

E. Plains SLV S. Platte Ark. Mts W. Slope State

Region

% R

espo

nden

ts w

ith W

ell o

r D

epth

(ft.)

Depth (ft.) % Reporting well

Figure 7. Respondents' farmstead well frequency and median depth.

Farm Products

Crops

Producers in Colorado grow a diverse set of crops and livestock, but we grouped survey

responses into broad crop categories (alfalfa or other hay, barley, beans, corn for silage or

grain, pasture, potatoes, wheat, and other crops) to facilitate summarization. The Other

Crops category included sugar beets, grain and forage sorghum, various vegetables, onions,

fruit crops, sunflowers, melons, and millet. While often important locally, they did not

constitute enough acreage to report individually statewide. Because of the importance of

potatoes in the San Luis Valley, we chose to report it individually. Readers interested in

results of a particular Other Crop are encouraged to contact the authors of this report.

Survey Question List your major farm enterprises: Crop Number of Acres* Percent Irrigated Livestock Type Peak # of Head

*Total number of dryland and irrigated acres.

18

82

3124 21 21

9 7 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Alfalfa orOtherHay

Corn forGrain orSilage

Pasture Wheat OtherCrops

Beans Barley Potatoes

Crop Category

% R

espo

nden

ts G

row

ing

Figure 8. Percent of respondents that report growing crop types,

averaged across regions.

Alfalfa or other hay is the most common crop, grown by 82% of survey respondents

(Fig. 8). Within each region farmers chose to grow hay more frequently than any other crop,

except for the Eastern Plains where corn and wheat are the dominant crops (Table A2). The

selection of non-hay crops varies across region. Corn and wheat are dominant crops among

the three eastern regions with Other Crops also being important in the South Platte. Potatoes,

barley, and wheat are the major crops grown in the San Luis Valley. Producers in the Eastern

Plains and the Arkansas Valley frequently grow crops not falling into these categories.

Dryland crops are important in the Eastern Plains, whereas vegetables and other specialty

crops are frequently grown in the Arkansas Valley. The percentage of respondents growing

alfalfa or other hay substantially increased from 1997 (77 to 82%), whereas all other crops

decreased or did not change. Corn and beans had the largest decreases at 11 and 6%,

respectively. These changes may reflect the increase in smaller farms responding to this

survey.

On a statewide basis, wheat is the largest cropping enterprise with an average of 379

acres of wheat production per farm. Potatoes and corn are next with 346 and 296 acres,

respectively. Examination of Table A2, however, reveals that the average per-farm-acreage

of each crop grown varies widely from region to region and from crop to crop. On average,

more than 80% of the acreage of each of the field crops grown are irrigated with the

exception of wheat in the South Platte and wheat and “other crops” in the Eastern Plains and

San Luis Valley. This provides an indication that, similar to 1997, the sample represents

individuals who are active in irrigation enterprises, not merely irrigating a few acres.

19

Livestock

Similar to 1997, the majority of

respondents in this survey have some livestock on

the farm (65% statewide) (Table A3). However,

70% of the respondents had less than 100 head or

none. Sixty percent of the respondents raised beef

cattle, (beef cows, fat cattle, stocker cattle), the

largest livestock category. The next largest group

of livestock category, horses, represents a

considerable change from 1997 when there were

not enough respondents to report them separately.

The percent of respondents with horses decreased with increasing farm size, suggesting that

the higher number of horse owners in this survey resulted from a greater percentage of

smaller farms. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents were medium sized operations (100

to 1000 head), but only 3% had more than the 1,000 head of livestock (Fig. 9). Depending up

on the type of livestock, few respondents would be classified as confined animal feeding

operations (CAFOs) based upon animal numbers. One livestock category that was not well

represented by the survey was dairy, with only six total respondents reporting dairy cattle.

Irrigation Systems and Components

Statewide, more respondents reported using ditch and check and gated pipe irrigation

systems than any other system (Table A4). Center pivots were the third most frequently used

system, but account for 74% of systems used on the Eastern Plains and 56% in the San Luis

Valley. Center pivots irrigated 38% of the acreage reported by our respondents. Thirty eight

None35%

1 to 10035%

100 to 25015%

250 to 100012%

> 10003%

Figure 9. Percent of respondents

reporting total livestock size categories.

Survey Question Approximately what percentage of the irrigated acres on your farm are serviced by each of the following types of irrigation systems? (should total 100 percent)

Gravity: gated pipe % Sprinkler: center pivot % siphon tubes % sideroll % ditch and check % other sprinkler % lay flat/collapsible pipe % Drip tube (surface or buried) % other gravity % Other %

20

percent of USDA/NASS, 1999 estimates for irrigated acreage in Colorado would be

approximately 1.1 million acres under center pivots. This compares closely to 1.2 million

acres of center pivot irrigation mapped by Bauder et al., 2004. Among all respondents, center

pivots dominated sprinkler usage except on the Western Slope where side roll systems are

prevalent. Siphon tubes were the dominant gravity system in the South Platte. While the

first section of Table A4 shows that respondents’ may use more than one irrigation system on

their farm, the second section demonstrates that one system often dominates within a region.

For example, 78% of a respondent’s acreage is served by center pivots in the East Plains and

70% by ditch and check in the Mountains. However, the other regions of the state showed

producers often deal with more types of systems in their operations. Finally, Figure 10

shows that center pivots covered the largest percentage of acreage that was surveyed.

Other Irrigation System

1%

Other Sprinkler1%

Other3%

Ditch & Check26%

Center Pivot38% Drip Tube

1%

Sideroll3%

Lay Flat/Collapsible

pipe2%

Other Gravity System

4%

Siphon Tubes14%

Gated Pipe10%

Figure 10. Percent of acreage covered by respondents' irrigation systems.

Survey Question Check T all irrigation components used on your farm: Surge valves Polyacryamides (PAM) Drop nozzles Field leveling Flow meters Low pressure nozzles (<25 psi) Lined ditches Computerized panel None of these used Flume or weir LEPA Other

21

Table 4. Irrigation system upgrade implementation anywhere on respondent’s farm. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado ---------------- % of Respondents Using --------------- Irrigation Upgrades aField Leveling 51 48 58 48 17 42 44 aLined Ditches 49 8 50 10 9 17 28 aPolyacrylamide 18 0 18 0 1 7 9 aSurge Valves 6 24 11 2 2 10 7 bDrop Nozzles 81 78 77 91 57 40 80 bLow Pressure (<25 psi) 57 75 38 54 43 40 59 bComputerized panel 6 17 2 18 2 2 7 bLEPA 7 23 31 4 0 0 11 cFlume or Wier 39 38 40 29 50 45 37 dFlow Meters 24 63 37 21 50 9 25 Other 4 6 4 5 13 10 7 None of these used 16 7 16 14 31 21 18 a percent of respondents using surface irrigation b percent of respondents using center pivot irrigation c percent of respondents using surface water d percent of respondents using ground water

Table 4 documents the irrigation components and systems upgrades used by

respondents. Many of these are intended to increase the irrigation uniformity and/or

efficiency of a particular system. Field leveling and lined ditches are the most popular

system upgrades for surface irrigation systems. Installation of these improvements has been

cost-shared by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and their benefits are

readily apparent to producers. Interestingly, the adoption of surge valves is not expanding in

many areas of the state. Their use has been heavily promoted in the South Platte and

Arkansas River basins, but the highest adoption rate is in the Eastern Plains. Among center

pivot irrigators, drop nozzles and low pressure systems are popular, but LEPA (low energy

precision application) is not. Over 50% of respondents had some type of water measurement

(flume, weir, or flow meter) available somewhere on their farm. The highest reported use

was flow meters in the Eastern Plains region. Finally, although the use of polyacrylamide

(PAM) is only as high as 18% in the Arkansas and S. Platte regions, this is a relatively high

adoption rate for a product that has been available for less than 10 years.

Irrigation Management

22

Table 5 provides the irrigation scheduling methods used by respondents to determine

when to irrigate. Respondents were allowed to choose from both primary and secondary

methods, because results from the 1997 survey indicated that producers use a combination of

methodologies to determine when to irrigate. As found in 1997, Experience and Crop

Appearance were the top methods selected. These methods are complementary, because

experience is necessary to schedule irrigations using crop appearance. The next two

methods, Fixed number of days and Ditch schedule, were used more often by nearly half of

surface water users, but only 10% of ground water users (Fig. 11). Experience, Crop

Appearance, Fixed number of days, and Ditch scheduling are all important, but are not

reliable for maximizing field level efficiency.

4837

49

18

2

23

43

30

10

30

42

9

28

6051 52

1018

12 12

0

25

50

75

100

Experience

Crop Appearance

Ditch or Fixed

Crop Consultant

Soil Methods

ET MethodsOther

% o

f Res

pond

ents

All Surface Water All Groundwater Mixed Water

Figure 11. Irrigation scheduling methods used by respondents.

Survey Question Check T the primary and secondary scheduling method(s) that you use to determine when to irrigate on your farm:

Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Fixed number of days Paid crop consultant Ditch schedule Atmometer (ET gage) Soil probe Gypsum blocks Tensiometers Computer program Weather station ET Experience Crop appearance Other

23

Regional differences in scheduling methods reflect the differences in water sources

and systems found throughout Colorado. Irrigating by ditch schedule dominates in surface

water basins while using weather station ET is more popular in the San Luis Valley.

Scheduling according to soil moisture using a probe or gypsum blocks is more frequently

used in Eastern Plains and San Luis Valley where consultants have promoted these methods.

The Mountains and Western Slope regions have the least “sophisticated” irrigation

scheduling methods, reflecting perhaps the reliance on direct diversions and ditch schedules.

Irrigators in areas more reliant on ground water (Eastern Plains and San Luis Valley) tend to

utilize more advanced scheduling techniques and advice from crop consultants.

Table 5. Irrigation scheduling methods used anywhere on farm. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado ---------------- % of Respondents Using --------------- Primary Method Experience 52 47 42 53 48 49 50 Crop Appearance 49 25 35 38 26 42 39 Ditch Schedule 29 4 60 25 26 15 24 Fixed # Day 19 7 9 10 22 30 19 Soil Probe 9 32 9 17 2 6 11 Crop Consultant 6 34 8 11 0 0 7 Weather Station ET 2 2 3 12 0 1 3 Tensiometer 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 Gypsum Block 1 6 0 1 0 0 1 Atmometer 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Computer Program 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Other 4 1 5 4 4 5 4 Secondary Method Experience 19 26 21 14 23 24 21 Crop Appearance 22 35 27 21 26 26 25 Ditch Schedule 19 2 9 14 8 10 12 Fixed # Day 23 12 10 22 9 15 16 Soil Probe 9 7 10 13 3 7 8 Crop Consultant 5 11 6 8 0 1 4 Weather Station ET 16 19 7 26 3 7 12 Tensiometer 4 1 2 8 0 1 3 Gypsum Block 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 Atmometer 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 Computer Program 2 0 0 4 1 0 1

Other 3 3 3 3 6 4 4

24

Among soil moisture based scheduling methods, using a soil probe is more popular

than instrumentation such as gypsum blocks or tensiometers. Gypsum blocks only see

significant use (6%) in the Eastern Plains and tensiometers (6%) only see significant use in

the San Luis Valley. This result reflects the difficulty in obtaining adoption of irrigation

scheduling methods. Gypsum blocks have been promoted and supported by the Y-W Soil

Conservation District in Eastern Colorado and thus the slightly higher adoption rate is to be

expected. However, tensiometers have been heavily promoted in the S. Platte by the

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for almost a decade, yet their adoption is not

much higher than any other region. Outside of the San Luis Valley, few respondents

reported using ET-based (evapotranspiration) irrigation scheduling methods such as weather

stations, atmometers and computer programs. This doesn’t mean these methods are

ineffective; rather they haven’t been adopted in many areas. Additionally, these methods

receive good local support in the San Luis Valley by Cooperative Extension, private

consultants, the Agricultural Experiment Station, and NRCS.

Appendix Tables A5 and A6 report irrigation scheduling methods adopted by

respondents according to irrigation system and water source. Growers with sprinkler systems

tend to use more sophisticated scheduling and in general, the more sophisticated the

irrigation system the more sophisticated the scheduling method. Additionally, respondents

using ground water as their primary water source are more likely to schedule by soil or ET-

based methods (Fig. 11). This result is not surprising given these users typically have more

incentive to schedule closer to crop need because of pumping costs and have the ability to

determine when to irrigate that surface water users may not always have.

Nutrient Management

Survey Question With respect to your nutrient (fertilizer) management do you ..(check T all that apply) Keep written records Use variable rate application (VRT) Establish crop yield goals Use soil test analysis to determine fertilizer rate Take plant tissue samples Use dealer rep for fertilizer recommendation Use paid crop consultant None of these used Deep soil test Other

25

Table 6 provides general adoption rates for nutrient management practices across all

responding farms. Statewide, soil test analysis was the number one practice selected, used by

roughly half of the producers. Regional differences among adoption rates reflect their

cropping diversity, fertilization practices, and respondent characteristics. For example, plant

tissue analysis has higher adoption in areas where fertigation is most prevalent and dealer

representatives are used more often for fertility advice in all basins except the Eastern Plains.

Almost half of the producers in the Eastern Plains rely on paid consultants for nutrient

management advice, more than any other region. Statewide, less than half of the respondents

said they keep written fertility records.

Table 6. Nutrient management methods used anywhere on farm. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado ---------------- % of Respondents Using --------------- Soil test analysis 64 78 45 54 23 36 49 Keep written records 48 50 33 40 27 40 41 Dealer representative 50 31 34 38 25 41 40 Establish yield goals 48 60 44 39 21 30 39 Deep soil test 21 40 11 21 5 9 16 Paid crop consultants 11 48 15 23 0 1 12 Variable rate application 7 11 7 6 5 9 8 Plant tissue samples 6 10 4 18 2 4 7 Other 2 4 6 4 9 8 6 None used 11 7 14 31 44 20 20

Survey Question If you soil test, approximately what percent of your irrigated acreage was soil sampled in: 2001 _____% last 3 years _____%

26

45

72

28

48

2513

56

76

46

62

37 34

0

25

50

75

100

S. Platte E. Plains Ark. SLV W. Slope Mts

Region

% A

crea

ge S

ampl

ed

2001 Last 3 Years

Figure 12. Percent of respondent's irrigated acreage soil sampled.

Respondents from the Eastern Plains and the San Luis Valley reported sampling a

higher percentage of their irrigated acreage than other regions (Fig. 12). Cropping patterns

explain much of the differences between acreage sampled (Tables A7 and A8).

Approximately 13% of the respondents reported that they did not apply any commercial

nitrogen fertilizers. Table A9 shows that adoption rates for nutrient management practices

where higher among respondents that also reported using commercial nitrogen fertilizer.

Among producers using nitrogen fertilizer, BMP adoption is significantly higher than the

general survey population or those using manure only. When respondents used N fertilizer,

only those from the Eastern Plains were more likely to use a paid crop consultant for advice

than a dealer representative.

Survey Question Do you use livestock manure or effluent for fertilizer? Yes No If yes, how do you determine your application rate? (check T all that apply) Soil test analysis Manure nutrient table values Use paid crop consultant Manure analysis Same amount each time None of these are used Spreader capacity Use all manure from pens Other

27

71

6158 56

27

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mts Ark. S. Platte SLV E. Plains Colorado

Region

% R

espo

nden

ts U

sing

Man

ure

Figure 13. Manure use among respondents by region.

Livestock feeding is extremely important to many areas of Colorado and manure is a

valuable byproduct of this industry that should be used as a plant nutrient source. Figure 13

shows that slightly greater than half of respondents used manure, which is consistent with

livestock ownership on irrigated farms. Respondents indicated that manure spreader capacity

and use of all manure from pens were the most common methods used to determine

application rates. The Eastern Plains region had the highest use of soil and manure testing to

determine application rates. Surprisingly, manure analysis is used at slightly higher rate than

manure nutrient table values, although both are used by less than 10% of the respondents in

all areas besides the Eastern Plains, where 34% of the respondents used manure analysis.

Consultants are used less frequently for manure application rate determination than with

fertilizer or pest decisions.

28

Table 7. Determination of manure application rates. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado ---------------- % of Respondents Using --------------- Application Rate Determination Use All Manure From Pens 43 41 28 62 53 55 49 Spreader Capacity 31 21 28 27 18 23 26 Soil Test Analysis 32 45 23 11 3 8 17 Same Amount Each Time 13 7 10 10 10 7 10 Manure Analysis 17 34 8 5 1 1 8 Manure Nutrient Table Values 13 3 8 5 1 1 6 Use Paid Consultant 8 14 5 6 0 0 4 Other 9 14 10 8 17 14 12 None of These Used 5 7 15 13 21 17 13

24 2317

12

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Manure Legume Water ConsultantDetermines

None Reported

Nutrient Credit Used

% R

espo

nden

ts U

sing

Figure 14. Nutrient credits used by respondents. Manure, legume,

and water credits are calculated as the percent of respondents who use manure, grow alfalfa and have only groundwater, respectively.

Survey Question Do you reduce your N fertilizer or manure rate for any of the following?

Approximate reduction? Previous manure application lbs N/ton Previous legume crop lbs N/acre Irrigation water nitrate lbs N/acre Consultant determines None of these used

29

Sound nutrient management also requires considering nutrients from other sources.

Figure 14 reports nutrient credits used by respondents towards fertilizer and manure

application rates. Of those reporting they applied manure, only 24% statewide indicated

using a manure credit. However, this ranged from 40% in the S. Platte, to 9% in the

mountains (Table A10). The amount of nitrogen credited per ton of manure applied reported

by the respondents is higher than recommended values (Waskom and Davis, 1999) at 24

pounds per ton. The low number of respondents reporting the use of a manure credit but not

owning livestock suggests that most of the respondents did not import manure from other

operations.

Legume crops, especially alfalfa can also provide a valuable source of nitrogen for

subsequent crops. The percentage of respondents using a legume credit, excluding the

Mountains and West Slope was approximately 30%. The amount of nitrogen growers

reported crediting to subsequent crops is within published values, but adoption of this

practice is low. However, many of the alfalfa growers in this survey did not grow other

crops and therefore would not necessarily need to consider a nitrogen credit.

40 0 0

20

7 10

48

14

25

713

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

S. Platte E. Plains Ark. SLVRegion

% U

sing

Wat

er N

itrat

e Cr

edit

All Surface H2O All Ground H2O Mixed H2O

Figure 15. Percent of respondents using an irrigation water nitrate credit.

Many areas of the state have irrigation water that contains enough nitrogen (usually

as nitrate) to significantly benefit crop production and a fertilizer or manure rate can be

reduced accordingly. High nitrate irrigation water is usually ground water, and therefore a

30

water nitrogen credit was used more frequently by respondents where ground water supplied

all of their irrigation water. The adoption of this practice is highest in the San Luis Valley,

with nearly half of the respondents there reporting using a water credit (Fig. 15). The S.

Platte was second with 20% of ground water users using water credits. Both of these regions

have areas with high nitrate in the ground water. The use of this practice in these areas is

encouraging because many resources have been used to build awareness of the nitrate

problem by Cooperative Extension, the NRCS and other public entities in these areas about

the practice of water nitrate crediting.

Table 8. Methods used to apply nitrogen fertilizer. Region Methods To Apply Nitrogen S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado ----------------- % of Respondents Using ---------------- Spring preplant 46 55 52 47 12 34 40 Topdress 33 45 41 32 36 48 39 Planting (starter) 24 63 26 21 2 13 22 Sidedress 30 42 44 10 1 12 21 Fall Preplant 18 28 27 8 6 7 14 Fertigate 13 41 13 25 1 3 13 Do Not Apply Comm. Fert. 11 5 8 21 19 11 13 Other 2 5 1 7 9 5 5 None of These Methods 8 4 6 18 25 11 12

The timing and method of fertilizer application are also important management

practices that increase fertilizer efficiency and protect water resources. Thus, producers were

asked to indicate nitrogen fertilizer application methods. Table 8 shows that spring pre-plant

applications were the most common method followed by topdress and at planting. In-season

applications such as sidedress, fertigate, and planting were highest in Eastern Plains and

Arkansas Valley. As expected, producers in regions where center pivots are common more

frequently utilize fertigation (application during irrigation). Appling nitrogen fertilizer in the

fall is generally not considered a BMP for spring crops due to increase potential for leaching,

runoff and other loses. However, this practice was used by almost 30% of respondents in the

Survey Question Check T all the methods that you use to apply N fertilizer:

Fall preplant Sidedress Do not apply commercial N fertilizer Spring preplant Fertigate None of these application methods Planting (starter) Topdress Other

31

Eastern Plains and Arkansas Valley, although some of this application was likely to winter

wheat. Table A11 provides the response to this question queried by the crop grown on the

representative field. Respondents were least likely to apply N on hay and pasture. In-season

applications were highest for respondents growing corn, other crops and potatoes on the

representative field. A significant proportion (13%) of the respondents indicated that they do

not apply commercial nitrogen fertilizer. These respondents were mostly from the San Luis

Valley and the Mountains and were usually alfalfa growers. Mountain meadows with grass

clover mix will see clover decline when nitrogen is applied and therefore it is probably a best

practice not to apply.

Pest and Pesticide Management

Controlling crop pests (weeds, insects, diseases, etc.) represents a significant

percentage of input costs for many Colorado crops. Pesticides (herbicides, fungicides,

insecticides) are a frequently used tool for pest control, but a wide variety of other practices

(Table 9) can be used, some in combination with pesticides, to manage pests. Many of these

practices are included in the concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) that is promoted

over a chemical only approach to pest control. Among pesticides, herbicides (weed control

chemicals) were the most frequently used chemical and used by over 88% of the growers

who reported using any pesticide (Table 9). Fungicides were used far less frequently

statewide and most often in San Luis Valley, an area with a large acreage of potatoes (Fig

16). Likewise, growers in the San Luis Valley also reported using sanitation practices at a

higher rate.

Survey Question Check T all pest management practices that you routinely use: (Include all weed, insect, and disease controls)

Residue management Biological controls Clean/pure seed Adjust planting/harvest dates Fungicides Biotech crops(GM) Resistant varieties Mulching Sanitation practices Herbicides Pest forecasting Hand hoeing/rogueing Crop rotation Cultivation Field scouting None of these used

Insecticides Other ____________

32

86 85 8287

8390

82 82 85

62

31

49

19 2025

42

914

0

20

40

60

80

100

S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope

Region

% R

epon

dent

s U

sing

Herbicides Insecticides Fungicides

Figure 16. Type of pesticides used by respondents.

Table 9. Adoption of pest control and pesticide best management practices (BMPs) by respondents using pesticides. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado

Pest Management Practices ---Use Among Respondents Using Any Pesticide (% using)---

Herbicides 86 85 82 87 83 90 88

Insecticides 82 82 85 62 31 49 68

Clean / Pure Seed 63 74 69 69 23 56 68

Cultivation 70 75 75 55 13 43 68

Field Scouting 60 74 58 65 27 42 53

Crop Rotation 58 71 74 68 5 38 59

Resistant Varieties 40 57 62 39 11 31 38

Residue Management 34 51 32 35 5 16 32

Fungicides 19 20 25 42 9 14 15

Sanitation Practices 17 15 11 38 3 13 26

Adjust Planting / Harvest 16 25 16 18 3 14 21

Mulching 19 10 12 12 2 6 18

Biotech Crops (GM) 8 36 32 0 0 4 12

Pest Forecasting 14 14 9 22 0 6 12

Hand Hoeing Rogueing 14 14 9 22 0 6 12

Biological Controls 7 13 10 11 5 12 12

Other 2 0 2 3 3 3 3

None of These Used 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticide Management

Keep Pesticide Records 55 50 42 44 17 27 41

Economic Thresholds 46 54 50 44 8 21 37

Dealer Representative 55 29 39 47 6 25 37

Banding / Spot App. 36 33 17 15 38 31 30

Keep Pest Records 34 34 25 37 16 18 28

Paid Crop Consultants 18 51 20 35 5 7 20

Other 3 0 9 4 5 8 21

None of These Used 9 3 8 16 34 28 16

33

Field scouting, a baseline IPM practice, was used by 53% of the respondents using

pesticides, but adoption varied significantly by region and by primary crop grown (Table 9).

As with fertilizer, paid crop consultants are used less frequently than dealer representatives

for pest scouting and advice, except in the Eastern Plains. A higher percentage of

respondents with potatoes or ‘other crops’ as primary crop reported using paid consultants

for pest scouting and management advice (Fig. 17).

All pest management practices in both questions were used at a much higher

percentage by growers using pesticides than those who did not. For non-pesticide users,

‘None used’ was the most frequent response (Table A13). The only management practice

with a higher adoption rate by non-pesticide users responding to the survey was biological

controls in the S. Platte, but not in other regions. This result is somewhat surprising given

that many of the practices listed are alternative management practices that can be used to

control pests without pesticides. Adoption of IPM practices was low in the Mountains, but

this rate reflects lack of overall pest pressure and low chemical use compared to other

regions.

Genetically modified crops or ‘biotech crops’ (i.e. Bt corn, RoundUp® Ready) have

become new pest management tools, primarily for corn growers in Colorado. Although they

are used by a much higher percentage of growers in some other states, only a small minority

of Colorado growers reported using Biotech crops for pest control. Respondents in the

Eastern Plains and Arkansas Valley used biotech crops more frequently than other regions.

Survey Question With respect to your pest management program do you… (check T all that apply) Keep pest records Use paid crop consultants for pest scouting and management advice Use dealer representative for pest scouting and management advice Keep pesticide records Use economic thresholds to determine pesticide application timing Use banding or spot application as opposed to broadcast application None of these used Other _______________________________________

34

4150

63

34 33

64

39

2838

24

38

2720 20

44

13

44

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alfalfa Corn Potato SmallGrains

Other Crop No PrimaryCrop

Primary Crop

% U

sing

Field Scouting Dealer Representative Paid Crop Consultant

Figure 17. Percent of respondents using pest scouting and/or outside pest advice.

Pest and pesticide record keeping is another IPM practice that helps growers track

pest outbreaks, reduce pesticide resistance by rotating chemical families, prevent crop

damage from carry-over, and reduce liability from misapplied pesticides. Pesticide

recordkeeping is also required by law for those using restricted use pesticides. However,

only 41% of pesticide users statewide reported keeping pesticide records and fewer still

(28%) kept pest records. As expected, respondents using pesticides were more likely to keep

pest records than those that do not use pesticides.

Questions about the Representative Field

Colorado farms are quite diverse and it is difficult to obtain information on specific

management decisions across the entire farm. Field specific characteristics influence

management decisions and many Colorado farms have fields that vary considerably in water

source, irrigation system, soil type and other characteristics. Therefore, each respondent was

asked to identify a specific field on their farm that they believed was representative of their

farm. The questions in this section of the survey were specific to that identified field. To

provide a context for interpreting the management on the representative field, we asked

respondents to describe several characteristics of what they believe is a field representative of

their farm. These characteristics are provided in Tables A16 through A23.

35

Crops grown on the representative field were similar to those grown on the whole

farm. The crop yields reported by respondents are similar those reported by the Colorado

Agricultural Statistics Service (CDA, 1990-2001), suggesting that we obtained a

representative sample of grower ability to produce high yields. Surprisingly, there was not

much variation among years for statewide averages, but regional yield differences are

apparent. Similar to results obtained from the whole farm, the irrigation system used by

respondents on the representative field varied by region. The system age largely reflects

(Table A23) technology of the system used and varies by region.

Survey Question Check T the irrigation application system used on the representative field.

gated pipe center pivot siphon tubes sideroll ditch & check other sprinkler lay flat/collapsible pipe drip tube (buried or surface) other gravity ___________ other system __________

Survey Question What crops have been grown over the last three years on the representative field? 1999 2000 2001 Crop Yield/acre estimate

Survey Question Check T the irrigation water source(s) used on the representative field.

Groundwater well Ditch company Individual surface diversion Primary Supplemental

If well is used: Well capacity? gpm

Depth to water? feet Pressure at well? psi

Survey Question What is the predominant soil texture of the representative field? (i.e. sandy loam, clay, etc) ________________________________________

36

In irrigated cropping systems, adequate water supply in both timing and amount is

critical to maximum production. Statewide, 46% of respondents indicated they had a full

supply of water for 10 out of 10 years, and 20% indicated they had a full supply less than five

years out of 10 (Figure 18). This compares to 65 and 6% respectively when the same

question was asked in 1997, perhaps reflecting wetter conditions during that time period.

The Arkansas Valley had the lowest water reliability in terms of full water supply. The

number of years where producers have a full water supply influences management decisions

involving risk and expected return from inputs.

68

5651

4035

31

46

1623

19 2216

21 20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

E. Plains SLV S. Platte W. Slope Ark Mts Colorado

Region

% R

espo

nden

ts

> 10 Years < 5 Years

Figure 18. Reliability of the water source on the representative field

as measured by having a full supply of water.

For ground water users, one aspect of water supply reliability is dictated by well

capacity. A well water source generally allows greater flexibility and reliability of water

timing, but often capacity is limiting (Table A20). Wells that supply less than five gallons

per minute per acre are unlikely to keep up with peak crop water demand (ET). Producers in

these situations may have difficulty adopting irrigation scheduling as they need to irrigate

constantly in mid-season, especially without help from precipitation. However, low water

Survey Question How many years out of 10 (0 to 10) are the primary and supplemental water sources together able to provide a full water supply for the crops grown on the representative field? years.

37

supply should influence adoption of higher efficiency systems. Producers in the Eastern

Plains had a higher percentage of low capacity wells than other regions as this area is

experiencing declines of its primary water source, the High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer.

Irrigation Management on the Representative Field

Two key elements of irrigation management are timing (scheduling) and amount of

water applied at each irrigation. We asked respondents to tell us about their irrigation

scheduling in the whole farm section, but asked about irrigation amount on the representative

field, because it allowed the respondents to provide specific amounts. Statewide, almost half

of the respondents indicated that they applied the same amount of water at each irrigation

(Table 10). However, this decision about water application amount varied by region from

24% in the Eastern Plains to greater than 60% on the Western Slope. Eleven percent of

respondents indicated that they irrigate to replenish soil water or crop water use. However,

on average, growers replenished soil to less than field capacity (85% field capacity). Not

fully replenishing the soil profile during each irrigation event could be due to necessity (low

system capacity) or to leave soil storage for potential rainfall. As with other practices,

growers in the Eastern Plains were more likely to use crop consultants for determining

irrigation amounts than other regions.

The primary water source (ground water, ditch company or individual surface

diversion) for the representative field had a notable influence on this management decision

(Figure 19). Ground water users more frequently applied water to replenish the soil profile

or crop water use and were more like to use crop consultants. Those respondents getting

water from ditch companies or diversions were more likely to apply a same amount or chose

Survey Question How did you determine the amount of water to apply at each irrigation on the

representative field?

Always applied the same amount each time Crop consultant determined the quantity applied Replenished crop water use since last

irrigation. What portion? _______% ET Replenish soil profile to a given level What level? _______% available water capacity Other (specify)________________________________________________

38

‘other’. The ‘other’ reason most frequently listed (39%) could be categorized as water

supply or amount available in the ditch, stream, or river.

Table 10. Reasons for amount applied at each irrigation. Region Amount Determination S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado -------------------- % Using -------------------- Same Each Time 54 24 42 34 49 63 48 Replenish Crop Water Use 14 7 14 15 6 7 11 % ET Replenished 82 78 73 84 82 80 81 Replenish Soil Profile 10 19 9 21 4 7 11

% Soil Water Replenished 81 88 89 76 92 91 85

Crop Consultant

Determines 5 38 9 15 1 1 8 Other 16 12 27 16 40 22 21 Number of Applications 6 9 5 11 6 6 7

35

1320

15 18

54

24

48 9

55

29

4 5 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Same EachTime

Other Method CropConsultantDetermines

ReplenishCrop Water

Use

Replenish SoilProfile

% R

espo

nden

ts U

sing

Ground water Ditch Co. Individual diversion

Figure 19. Reasons given for determing irrigation application amount

by primary water source on representative field.

39

The next 3 questions on irrigation amount were included to understand the frequency

and amount of water that irrigators apply in Colorado. Respondents from the San Luis

Valley applied water more frequently (11 applications) than other regions and the Arkansas

Valley the fewest (5) in 2001 (Table 10). Areas with higher percentage of center pivots have

more applications as those systems typically apply less water per irrigation. The average

number of applications was similar among regions where surface irrigation dominates.

Growers in the Eastern Plains and San Luis Valley reported knowing how much water they

applied at higher rates than other regions (Table 11). For growers reporting an amount of

water applied, there was considerable disagreement among values reported in different units.

The estimates provided by respondents of the total amount of water applied throughout the

2001 growing season were variable, often unreasonable and were therefore unable to present

a meaningful result for this question. Likewise, Table 11 shows that only 41% of

respondents statewide reported that they knew their total application amount. This result

agrees with the low numbers of respondents keeping irrigation records (16 to 29%), but is not

consistent with the earlier result that over half of the respondents had an irrigation water

measurement device on their farm.

Survey Question Did you keep records of water applied throughout the season? YES NO

Survey Question How much water was applied to the representative field throughout the 2001 growing season?

inches/acre gals/acre acre feet/acre Don’t know

Survey Question How many irrigation applications were made to the representative field throughout 2001? ____applications

Survey Question Do you know how much water the crop used (ET) in 2001?

No Yes ______ inches

40

Understanding and tracking crop water use (ET) is useful for improved irrigation

scheduling, crop selection, and water allocation planning. However, a small minority of the

responding farmers reported knowing the water use (ET) by the crop grown in 2001 on the

representative field (Table 11). More growers in the San Luis Valley reported knowing their

crop water use, which is consistent with a higher level of ET-based irrigation scheduling in

that area. Average crop water use (ET) values reported do not show the differences one

would expect between regions and some crops (Table A25). Alfalfa, corn, and bean water

use were underestimated by the respondents, while small grain water use reported is close to

published crop water use values (NRCS, 1998).

Table 11. Irrigation record keeping on representative field. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado ---------- % of Respondents ---------- Keep Rec. of Water Applied 21 25 25 29 15 21 23 Know Crop Water Used (ET) 7 9 7 11 4 7 7 Know Amt. of Water Applied 48 63 39 51 25 32 41

Factors Affecting Management Changes

Change in management reflects the ability or desire of growers to adopt new

technology or to adapt to changing market conditions. However, advances available to

growers vary by irrigation system, region, crop, and other factors. These differences are

reflected in Table A26. Growers in the Eastern Plains reported more change than other

regions (Fig. 20). The most frequently reported change was some aspect of the irrigation

system, followed by a change in water management (Fig. 21). These water/irrigation

management changes combined for over half of the changes respondents reported, which

suggests that growers are more likely to make changes to manage their most important input,

water. Readers are referred to Table A26 for a more comprehensive breakdown of

management changes.

Survey Question Have you changed any management practices on the representative field in the last

five years? No Yes, list: ______________________

41

41

30

25 24 2319

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

E. Plains S. Platte W. Slope SLV Ark Mts Colorado

Region

% R

epor

ting

Cha

nge

Figure 20. Percent of respondents reporting any management change within last five years

Crop Mgmt18%

Tillage Change12%

Fertilizer Mgmt10%

Other7%

Water System34%

Water Management

19%

Figure 21. Type of management practice changed within last five years.

Survey Question Check T all the sources that you regularly use for irrigation and/or crop production

information: Irrigation Crop production Irrigation Crop production

Chemical dealer/applicator Paid crop consultant Neighbors NRCS (formerly SCS) Soil testing lab Water district/Ditch Company CSU/Cooperative Extension Popular farm press Irrigation equipment dealer Seed dealer Other internet sources Other________________

42

Where growers receive information regarding decisions on crop production and

irrigation management makes a difference in terms of the perceived quality of the

information received and trust in the source. The traditional sources of information

(Cooperative Extension, NRCS) are perhaps less directly used as farms become more

specialized and require more specific information (Fig. 22). Often, these agencies are

focusing their limited resources training crop advisers and others that deal directly with the

farmer. Regional differences in where Colorado farmers get their information again are

striking. For example, “neighbors” are the first source of information in the Mountains, but

rank fourth in crop management statewide. Likewise, paid consultants for crop production

advice are only used by 13% of respondents statewide, but by 44% in the Eastern Plains

(Table A27).

4438

30 2822

16 14 13 116 5

9 95

21

11 815 12

35

4

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dealer /

Applic

ator

Soil Testi

ng La

b

Seed D

ealer

Neighbo

rs

CSU / Coo

p. Ext.

Popula

r Farm

PressNRCS

Paid Crop C

onsu

ltant

Water D

ist / D

itch C

o.

Intern

et Sou

rces

Irriga

tion Equ

ip. Dea

ler

Information Source

% R

espo

nden

ts U

sing

Crop Irrigation

Figure 22. Sources of crop or irrigation information used by respondents.

Survey Question What are the main factors that limit crop production or irrigation decisions on your farm? (check T all that apply)

Management time Lack of information Labor cost Landlord Equipment cost Water availability Lender Other ___________________

43

Making decisions on crop production or irrigation management is often complicated

with many factors influencing the final outcome. Understanding the factors that limit

decisions may be educational to policy makers, researchers, extension professionals and

others interested in convincing growers to consider a particular practice or new technology.

Water availability, followed by equipment cost and time, were the most frequently chosen

factors that limit decisions (Fig. 23). Not surprisingly, water availability was chosen more

frequently in regions that reported less water reliability, such as the Arkansas Valley.

Farmers have a wide range of information sources to support their decision. Perhaps this

explains why lack of information was not a limiting factor for 94% of respondents (Table

A28).

64

3729 27

166 5 4

0

20

40

60

80

Water Ava

ilabil

ity

Equipm

ent C

ost

Manage

ment T

ime

Labo

r Cost

Other

Lack

of In

formati

on

Lend

er

Land

lord

Limiting Factors

Perc

ent

Figure 23. Factors limiting respondents’ crop production or irrigation decisions.

One purpose for conducting this survey was to learn what information would best

support irrigating crop producers in making profitable and environmentally sound decisions.

As with management changes, we decided to leave this question open ended. The responses

Survey Question What information from CSU would be most useful for making water management decisions? Please describe: _________________________________________

44

to this question were quite varied, as would be expected with an open ended question. We

categorized the responses into 12 different categories. The top two categories were responses

that involve some aspect of water management (Table 12). Respondents listed some aspect

of crop water use or evapotranspiration (ET) second as information that would be useful for

making water management decisions. The third most frequently mentioned category,

interestingly was “None” or “I don’t know” suggesting that the respondent did not require

more information to manage water for best economic use in their operation or did not know

about what water information CSU provides or how it could be applied to their operation.

Table 12. Information requested from CSU to make water management decisions. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope Colorado ---------- Requested Information (%) ---------- Irrigation Mgmt/Systems 22 22 31 19 27 28 25 Crop Water Use/ET 18 22 4 34 5 8 15 None/Don’t Know 16 5 20 9 14 17 14 Other 9 8 9 17 13 10 11 General Crop Mgmt/Tillage 7 19 4 3 2 14 8 Weather/Water Forecasts 10 <1 13 3 10 8 8 Current Info Okay 1 8 7 3 5 6 4 Fertility/Water Testing Info. 6 <1 <1 3 8 2 4 Growth/Urban Issues 5 3 7 3 5 <1 3 Limited Irrigation 4 14 <1 <1 <1 3 3 Water Policy/Law 1 <1 2 5 8 1 3 Irrigation Infrastructure 2 <1 2 <1 5 4 2

Water Concerns

The quality of the water growers have to work with can limit production and

management decisions as much as quantity in many cases. Colorado is fortunate to be at the

top of the watershed in all of its major basins and is the first to utilize water in these systems.

However, natural and human influences can degrade water quality limiting uses to others

downstream. Therefore, we were interested in whether Colorado water users had concerns

Survey Question Are there any concerns about the quality of the water on your farm?

No Yes: for crop production for livestock for household use other ____________________

45

about their water quality for crop production, household, or livestock use and whether they

had a recent analysis of their irrigation water. Overall, only 26% of respondents reported a

concern about the quality of their water on their farm for these uses. Of those having a

concern, statewide respondents were most concerned about the quality of their water for crop

production, but more respondents had concerns for household uses in some regions (Table

13). The Arkansas Valley region had the highest percentage of respondents (52%) reporting

a concern about the quality of their water for crop production (Fig. 24). However, only 25%

reported having their irrigation water analyzed. Surprisingly, concern of water quality for

household use was highest in the Eastern Plains, an area that typically has better quality

water than other regions (Anonymous, 1997). However, people living in this region rely

more on water from private sources (wells) than other regions.

52

3127

2217 17

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ark S. Platte E.Plains

W.Slope

SLV Mts Colorado

Region

% R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 24. Percent of respondents’ having any water quality concerns.

46

26

3633

24

8

0

10

20

30

40

Any Concern CropProduction

HouseholdUse

Livestock Other

Use Concern

% R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 25. Respondents’ water quality concerns by water use (state average).

Table 13. Irrigation water analysis and concerns about quality of water on farm. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope ColoradoIrrigation Water Analyzed (%) 21 38 25 34 9 8 19 Average Years Ago 6 7 8 6 5 10 7 -----------------------------------------%----------------------------------------- Water Quality Concerns 31 27 52 17 17 22 26 Crop Production 37 36 48 38 14 32 36 Household Use 30 46 20 41 46 33 33 Livestock 25 18 26 22 20 28 24 Other 8 ** 6 ** 20 7 8 ** Five respondents or fewer in category

Survey Question Have you ever had your irrigation water analyzed?

year Yes L When: ____________ No

47

To learn what water quality or quantity concerns exist among Colorado irrigating

producers, we provided respondents with a list of potential water concerns they may have for

water either on their own farm or in their county. We purposefully mixed quantity and

quality concerns in random order as to not bias selection. Not surprisingly, the top water

concern for our irrigating audience was water availability for both on the farm and in the

county (Table 14). Except for weed seeds, quantity issues topped the list. The most

frequently water quality issue selected was salinity, followed by erosion. Salinity was

chosen by half of the respondents from the Arkansas Valley and nearly a third from the S.

Platte. Salinity in the lower Arkansas River Valley is a serious problem (Garcia and Foged,

2002) and this result suggests that growers in this area are well aware of the impacts to crop

production caused by saline irrigation water. There did not appear to be a difference in the

hierarchy of “on-farm” concerns versus in county concerns suggesting on-farm water quality

problems are similar to those in the area. Statewide, only 5% of respondents reported having

no concerns about water on their farm or in their county, underscoring the reliance between

crop production and reliable, clean water.

Survey Question Check T any concerns that you have about water on your farm and/or in your county: on your

farm in your county

on your farm

in your county

erosion/sediment water availability metals bacteria/pathogens regulations fertilizer urban runoff salinity (salts) manure runoff drought selenium urban competition weed seeds none nitrate other __________

48

Table 14. Concerns about water on farm and/or in county. Region S. Platte E. Plains Ark SLV Mts W. Slope ColoradoWater Concerns ---------- % of Respondents with Concern ---------- on the Farm Water Availability 60 54 71 58 61 50 57 Drought 48 50 65 52 54 47 51 Weed Seeds 47 21 46 32 44 50 43 Urban Competition 44 15 31 30 31 26 31 Salinity (salts) 31 11 58 12 10 28 25 Regulations 24 32 20 34 24 21 25 Erosion / Sediment 25 10 16 11 22 27 21 Nitrate 19 21 18 11 8 7 13 Fertilizer 14 10 9 6 5 9 9 Bacteria / Pathogens 8 6 8 5 8 5 7 Selenium 3 4 16 2 3 10 6 Urban Runoff 11 4 10 1 5 2 5 Metals 7 6 5 5 5 4 5 Manure Runoff 7 4 1 5 7 3 5 None 4 9 2 5 5 4 5 Other 1 3 5 1 2 3 3 Water Concerns in the County Water Availability 49 53 58 44 50 37 46 Drought 42 48 60 51 50 45 47 Weed Seeds 47 22 46 36 48 50 44 Urban Competition 56 23 37 35 39 37 40 Salinity (salts) 21 7 54 10 11 28 22 Regulations 34 33 26 37 31 24 30 Erosion / Sediment 18 9 13 11 20 20 17 Nitrate 26 30 17 16 8 6 16 Fertilizer 11 19 5 8 3 6 9 Bacteria / Pathogens 8 10 9 5 5 5 7 Selenium 5 5 15 2 3 16 8 Urban Runoff 22 3 15 3 10 6 11 Metals 6 6 8 8 6 4 6 Manure Runoff 11 15 1 5 7 3 7 None 3 7 2 7 3 4 4 Other 1 3 6 2 5 5 3

49

SUMMARY

Overall, the survey results suggest that producers are accepting many of the irrigation,

pesticide and nutrient management BMPs that help protect water quality and farm

profitability. Adoption of nutrient and pesticide management BMPs is generally higher than

irrigation management BMPs such as irrigation scheduling. Irrigation system improvements

are common in most regions, but adoption of management BMPs used to determine

application timing and amount are not. Practices that have an obvious economic benefit (soil

sampling, pest scouting) seem to be used more often than those where the return from

increased managerial input is less obvious. For example, record keeping for pest, nutrient,

and irrigation water is not widely practiced and thus growers likely do not believe they will

significantly benefit from their time invested in keeping these records. However, there were

considerable differences in adoption rates between region of the state, crop mix, water

source, and farm irrigation system. Water source appeared to have the largest impact on

irrigation management. The majority of growers did not report making a management

change on their representative field in the last five years, illustrating the difficulty of making

management changes in irrigated agriculture.

We also learned that the decisions growers make are limited most often by water

availability, equipment cost and time, but not by lack of information. However, when asked,

respondents most frequently said information about irrigation systems and management and

crop water use would be most useful for making water management decisions. The survey

results also provided insight into sources of information irrigating crop producers use for

crop production and irrigation decisions with chemical dealer and water district being the top

choices, respectively. Finally, the survey results indicate that growers in Colorado do have

concerns about both water quantity and quality for both human, crop and livestock needs.

50

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1997. Annual Report for 1998, Status of Implementation of Senate Bill 90-126,

the Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Protection Act. Colorado Department of Agriculture, Colorado State University, Cooperative Extension, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Bauder, T.A., Cipra, J., Waskom, R., and M. Gossenauer. 2004 Center pivot irrigation in Colorado as mapped by landsat imagery. Colo. Ag. Expt. Tech.

Bulletin TB04-04 Bauder, T.A., Waskom, R.M., Frasier, W.M. and D.L. Hoag. 1997. Adoption of best

management practices in Colorado. Agronomy Abstracts. Colorado Department of Agriculture. Colorado Agricultural Statistics. 1999, 2000, 2001.

Colo. Ag. Statistics Service. Lakewood, Colorado. Dillman, D. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley Interscience.

John Wiley and sons, New York. Frasier, W.M., Waskom, R.M., Hoag D.L. and T.A. Bauder. 1999. Irrigation management in

Colorado: survey data and findings. Colo. Ag. Expt. Station Report, TR-99-5. Garcia, L.A. and Foged, N., “Field Scale Monitoring and Modeling of Salinity and

Waterlogging in the Lower Arkansas River Basin of Colorado”, published in the proceedings of the Central Plains Irrigation Short Course and Exposition, February 5-6, 2002, Lamar, CO.

NRCS, Anonymous. 1988. Colorado Irrigation Guide. USDA-SCS Soil Conservation

Service. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture- USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service-NASS. 1999.

1997 Census of Agriculture, Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (1998). Vol. 3, Special Studies, Part 1.

Waskom, R. M. and J. G. Davis. 1999. Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization.

Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. Bulletin 568A

51

Appendix A Supporting Data Tables

Table A1. Personal characteristics of respondents. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Average Years of Irrigation Experience 30 25 28 31 32 30 30

Education Level (%) High School 29 28 34 22 29 32 30 Some College 23 23 30 33 19 23 24 Vocational/Tech Degree 10 10 8 5 8 8 8 Bachelors Degree 24 31 21 29 25 24 25 Graduate Degree 14 9 8 10 18 13 13

Gross Farm Sales (%) Under $50,000 38 15 42 35 59 57 44 $50,000 - $99,000 23 21 16 19 24 21 21 $100,000 - $249,000 21 22 23 22 13 15 19 $250,000 - $499,000 11 24 12 12 3 5 10 $500,000 - $1,000,000 4 11 2 6 1 1 3 Over $1,000,000 3 7 4 6 1 3

Off-Farm Job (%) 43 37 44 37 49 48 44

Percent of Income from Farm (respondents with off-farm employment) 35 43 30 36 21 29 31

Percent of Income from Farm (all respondents) 49 60 51 57 39 45 49

A-1

Table A2. Crops grown on entire farm.

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Region

Western Crop Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Proportion of Respondents Growing Each Crop (%) Alfalfa or Other Hay 79 39 87 80 93 90 82 Corn for Grain or Silage 52 70 54 2 1 18 31 Pasture 20 7 20 31 18 32 24 Wheat 24 62 36 18 1 11 21 Other Crops 27 46 37 13 3 12 21 Beans 14 19 6 -- -- 9 9 Barley 8 -- 3 28 -- 2 7 Potatoes 1 1 1 22 -- -- 3

Average Acreage of Respondents Growing Each Crop Alfalfa or Other Hay 338 265 310 316 269 150 258 Corn for Grain or Silage 235 629 233 -- -- 84 296 Pasture 422 499 262 515 1476 293 481 Wheat 320 557 627 151 -- 79 379 Other Crops 281 406 263 208 431 71 279 Beans 96 172 61 -- -- 99 110 Barley 135 -- -- 325 -- 70 236 Potatoes -- -- -- 368 -- -- 346

Percent of Acres Irrigated for Respondents Growing Each Crop (%) Alfalfa or Other Hay 94 82 95 94 89 94 93 Corn for Grain or Silage 95 79 98 -- -- 92 91 Pasture 47 11 45 61 40 66 55 Wheat 55 23 79 94 -- 83 58 Other Crops 69 36 82 54 20 77 63 Beans 98 95 86 -- -- 94 96 Barley 97 -- 100 100 -- 88 98 Potatoes 100 100 100 96 -- -- 96

"--" indicates that no respondents reported growing crop in region.

A-2

Table A3. Livestock raised on entire farm. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Proportion of Respondents Raising Each Class of Livestock (%) Livestock of Any Type 59 58 62 66 78 70 65 Beef Cows 37 32 42 50 62 57 48 Horses 8 2 6 11 19 17 12 Stocker Cattle 9 11 17 9 17 10 11 Sheep 5 <1 <1 9 6 8 6 Fat Cattle 4 2 3 <1 <1 <1 1 Swine 3 <1 3 <1 <1 <1 1 Dairy 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Average Number of Animals for Respondents Growing Each Type Beef Cows 185 348 161 183 250 157 195 Horse 29 16 35 15 34 18 24 Stocker Cattle 130 453 124 250 192 131 186 Sheep 100 3000 2500 440 93 926 580 Fat Cattle 824 1733 1133 -- -- -- 1027 Swine 177 200 16 -- 8 59 119 Dairy 683 400 -- -- -- 400 589

Distribution of Total Livestock Numbers (%) None 41 42 38 34 22 30 35 1 to 100 head 31 25 30 36 41 42 35 100 to 250 head 13 13 16 16 17 16 15 250 to 1000 head 12 13 12 12 16 10 12 > 1000 head 4 7 4 2 4 2 3

"--" indicates that no respondents reported growing livestock class in region.

A-3

Table A4. Irrigation systems used on entire farm Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western System Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Percent of Respondents Using Systema

Ditch & Check 44 6 39 52 80 57 51 Gated Pipe 45 18 65 9 15 51 39 Center Pivot 36 74 12 56 5 6 29 Siphon Tubes 51 3 50 27 2 17 28 Sideroll 4 6 0 1 5 23 10 Other Gravity System 5 2 2 4 15 7 6 Lay Flat/Collapsible pipe 16 0 1 1 2 1 5 Other Sprinkler 3 5 1 1 3 7 4 Other Irrigation System 1 1 0 1 4 2 1 Drip Tube 0 0 3 0 1 0 0

Average Percent of Respondents' Acreage Served by System Ditch & Check 25 4 27 34 70 38 34 Center Pivot 27 78 6 46 2 3 22 Gated Pipe 14 5 30 2 5 26 16 Siphon Tubes 23 2 29 11 1 8 13 Sideroll 2 4 0 0 4 13 5 Other Gravity System 2 1 2 2 11 4 4 Lay Flat/Collapsible pipe 5 0 0 1 0 0 2 Other Sprinkler 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 Other Irrigation System 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 Drip Tube 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Percent of Acreage Surveyed Under Each System Center Pivot 41 94 9 58 1 5 38 Ditch & Check 14 1 28 30 64 40 27 Siphon Tubes 24 1 37 8 0 11 14 Gated Pipe 12 4 23 1 5 21 10 Other Gravity System 1 0 1 2 21 3 4 Sideroll 1 1 0 0 1 15 3 Lay Flat/Collapsible pipe 5 0 0 1 0 0 2 Other Irrigation System 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 Other Sprinkler 0 0 1 0 0 0 <1 Drip Tube 0 0 <1 0 <1 <1 <1

a Percentages do not add to 100 because many respondents use more than one type of system on their farm.

A-4

Table A5. Irrigation scheduling methods used anywhere on farm by irrigation system. System

Gate Siphon Ditch & Coll. Other Center Side Other Drip Other Pipe Tubes Check Pipe Grav. Pivot Roll Sprink. Tube

Primary Scheduling ---------------- Percent of Respondents Using ---------------Experience 51 53 51 55 53 53 57 67 25 59 Crop Appearance 47 55 38 52 35 38 37 14 25 36 Fixed # of Days 26 29 19 27 24 14 35 19 0 36 Ditch Schedule 36 41 32 42 26 9 11 10 25 32 Soil Probe 9 12 5 12 9 27 11 5 ** 18 Tensiometers 2 4 3 6 6 5 1 ** ** 14 Weather Station ET 4 6 3 6 6 10 4 5 50 14 Paid Crop Consultant 5 8 3 9 6 24 1 5 ** 14 Atmometer (ET gage) 3 4 3 6 6 2 1 ** ** 14 Gypsum Blocks 3 4 3 6 6 5 1 ** ** 14 Computer Program 2 4 3 6 6 2 1 5 ** 14 Other 7 5 7 6 12 5 7 5 ** 14

Secondary Scheduling Experience 24 22 22 33 32 22 19 24 25 27 Crop Appearance 24 25 28 24 18 27 30 14 25 41 Fixed # of Days 19 27 15 30 12 19 18 10 25 14 Ditch Schedule 12 25 15 33 24 10 14 5 ** 27 Soil Probe 13 12 8 15 12 14 7 5 50 14 Tensiometers 4 8 4 15 6 6 2 ** 50 14 Weather Station ET 6 9 5 15 9 10 4 ** ** 14 Paid Crop Consultant 5 8 4 12 6 11 1 ** ** 14 Atmometer (ET gage) 3 6 3 12 6 2 1 ** ** 18 Gypsum Blocks 3 8 3 12 6 3 1 ** ** 14 Computer Program 2 6 3 12 6 3 1 5 ** 14 Other 5 6 7 6 12 4 6 5 ** 18

** No Respondents In Category

A-5

Table A6. Irrigation scheduling methods used anywhere on farm by water source. Water Source

All All Mixed Statewide Surface Water Groundwater Water Average

Primary Scheduling --------------- % Using -----------------Experience 48 43 60 50 Crop Appearance 37 30 51 39 Ditch Schedule 28 2 33 24 Fixed # of Days 22 9 19 19 Soil Probe 4 34 14 11 Paid Crop Consultant 1 30 10 7 Tensiometers 4 4 3 4 Weather Station ET 1 6 8 3 Atmometer (ET gage) 0 2 3 1 Gypsum Blocks 0 5 1 1 Computer Program 0 1 1 0 Other 23 28 12 21

Secondary Scheduling Experience 23 28 12 21 Crop Appearance 25 29 23 25 Ditch Schedule 12 0 21 12 Fixed # of Days 15 16 23 16 Soil Probe 7 8 13 8 Paid Crop Consultant 2 8 10 5 Tensiometers 1 10 8 4 Weather Station ET 4 3 3 4 Atmometer (ET gage) 1 4 6 3 Gypsum Blocks 1 2 3 1 Computer Program 1 0 2 1 Other 1 2 2 1

A-6

Table A7. Respondents using soil test analysis. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

--------------- Percent of Irrigated Acreage ---------------

Sampled in 2001 45 72 28 48 13 25 41 Sampled in Last 3 Years 56 76 46 62 34 37 54

Use N Fertilizer Soil Test in 2001 48 75 33 54 18 27 45 Soil Test 3 Years Prior 59 78 53 70 47 39 58

Do Not Use N Fertilizer Soil Test in 2001 43 53 35 21 ** 20 32 Soil Test 3 Years Prior 54 78 75 20 8 60 46

Table A8. Percent of acreage sampled among respondents using soil test analysis. Dominant Crop*

Small Other No Primary Alfalfa Corn Potato Grains Crop Crop Average

---------- Percent of Irrigated Acreage Sampled -----------

Sampled in 2001 25 67 95 57 87 46 41 Sampled in Last 3 Years 43 68 99 65 83 59 54 *>2/3 of irrigated acreage, >1/2 irrigated acreage for potatoes

A-7

Table A9. Adoption of nutrient management as affect by use of commercial nitrogen fertilizer. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Apply Commercial N Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

----------------- Percent (%) of Respondents Using ----------------Use N Fertilizer

Soil Test Analysis 69 79 47 63 29 38 53 Keep Written Records 52 53 33 48 31 42 44 Est. Crop Yield Goals 52 63 46 48 25 32 43 Dealer Rep. 53 33 35 46 30 43 43 Deep Soil Test 23 39 13 26 6 9 18 None of These Used 7 6 11 21 36 16 15 Paid Crop Consultant 12 48 16 28 ** ** 13 Variable Rate Application 8 10 6 7 7 11 9 Plant Tissue Sampling 6 10 ** 22 ** 5 7 Other ** ** 6 ** 6 8 5

Do Not Use N Fertilizer Soil Test Analysis 41 ** ** 30 ** ** 26 Keep Written Records 22 ** ** ** ** 29 21 Est. Crop Yield Goals 22 ** ** ** ** ** 15 Dealer Rep. 22 ** ** ** ** 23 15 Deep Soil Test ** ** ** ** ** ** 7 None of These Used 34 ** ** 57 72 54 51 Paid Crop Consultant ** ** ** ** ** ** 4 Variable Rate Application ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Plant Tissue Sampling ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Other ** ** ** ** ** ** 7

** Five respondents or fewer in category

A-8

Table A10. Frequency of nutrient crediting practices on whole farm. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

---------------- Percent of Respondents Using Credit ----------------Manure Credit

Manure Use Indicated 40 33 33 17 9 18 24 Own Livestock (>10 hd) 26 23 20 13 10 14 17 No Livestock 15 10 10 3 0 4 7

Median Credit Amount lbs. N/acre 27 ** 15 ** ** 30 24

Legume Credit Grow Alfalfa 29 29 32 24 5 19 23 No Alfalfa 12 16 ** 6 3 20 13 Other Legume 21 15 27 20 4 15 17 Median Credit Amount

lbs. N/acre 50 50 80 50 ** 70 65

Water Credit All Surface Water 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 All Ground Water 20 7 10 48 ** ** 17 Mixed Ground / Surface Water 14 25 7 13 ** 0 13 Median Credit Amount

lbs. N/acre 20 ** ** 20 ** ** 20

Consultant Determines Credit 12 39 12 17 2 4 12 No Credits Reported 38 25 36 47 72 59 48 ** Five respondents or fewer in category

A-9

Table A11. Methods used to apply nitrogen fertilizer by crop grown on representative field. Crop

Alfalfa Corn Grass Other Corn / Hay Grain Hay Crop Wheat Beans Barley Potatoes Silage Pasture

----------------- Percent of Respondents Using ----------------Application Methods

Spring preplant 26 68 15 63 68 85 89 77 71 29 Topdress 42 26 51 40 55 41 39 32 19 29 Planting (starter) 10 54 7 35 45 26 25 68 24 ** Sidedress 7 56 1 44 43 52 36 27 38 ** Fall Preplant 7 28 2 23 40 41 25 14 24 ** Fertigate 4 33 1 26 20 19 39 73 33 ** Do Not Apply 17 5 17 7 ** ** ** 5 14 21 Other 5 3 8 7 5 4 ** 5 ** 14 None of These 17 1 14 7 3 ** ** ** ** 7

** No Respondents in Category

A-10

Table A12. Adoption of pest control and pesticide best management practices (BMPs) by dominant crop. Dominant Crop*

Small Other No Primary Alfalfa Corn Potato Grains Crop Crop Average

Pest Management Practices Use Among Respondents Using Any Pesticide (% using) Herbicide 86 84 89 100 82 88 86 Insecticides 59 81 89 81 73 72 67 Clean / Pure Seed 52 72 67 75 82 68 61 Cultivation 51 71 56 56 64 63 58 Field Scouting 48 59 78 44 55 61 54 Crop Rotation 43 62 67 63 45 65 53 Resistant Varieties 30 41 33 63 64 50 40 Residue Management 23 42 33 44 55 32 29 Fungicides 15 24 33 31 36 23 20 Sanitation Practices 11 25 22 19 36 20 16 Adjust Planting / Harvest 15 20 11 19 27 17 16 Mulching 10 14 0 6 27 14 12 Biotech Crops (GM) 8 19 11 31 0 13 11 Pest Forecasting 6 15 22 6 18 15 11 Hand Hoeing / Rogueing 21 19 22 31 55 27 24 Biological Controls 9 13 22 13 9 10 10 Other 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 None of These Used 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pesticide Management Keep Pesticide Records 34 51 67 63 67 45 40 Economic Threshold 29 42 44 50 44 44 37 Dealer Representative 31 34 11 44 11 44 36 Banding / Spot App. 26 31 11 19 11 33 30 Keep Pest Records 23 39 56 38 56 28 27 Paid Crop Consultant 20 20 44 13 44 22 20 None of These Used 21 9 11 13 11 10 16

*>2/3 of irrigated acreage, >1/2 irrigated acreage for potatoes

A-11

Table A13. Adoption of pest control and pesticide best management practices (BMPs) by respondents not using pesticides.

Region South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Use Among Respondents Not Using Pesticides* (% using) Pest Management Practices

None of These Used 35 36 44 48 67 45 49 Clean / Pure Seed 16 45 32 24 14 33 25 Field Scouting 26 36 16 26 9 16 18 Crop Rotation 26 27 16 17 5 20 16 Cultivation 14 45 20 14 5 14 13 Resistant Varieties 7 0 4 14 0 13 8 Adjust Planting / Harvest 14 9 4 15 6 5 8 Other 2 9 4 3 6 7 5 Residue Management 9 18 0 3 1 7 5 Biological Controls 12 9 0 3 5 3 5 Sanitation Practices 5 0 8 8 2 4 4 Mulching 7 9 4 5 0 2 3 Pest Forecasting 2 9 0 2 0 1 1 Hand Hoeing / Rogueing 2 9 0 2 0 1 1 Biotech Crops (GM) 0 9 4 0 0 0 1

Pesticide Management None of These Used 71 50 70 77 79 74 74 Banding / Spot App. 2 40 4 6 3 0 4 Dealer Representative 7 0 9 13 1 4 5 Economic Thresholds 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 Paid Crop Consultants 7 10 4 8 3 4 5 Keep Pest Records 2 10 4 5 0 1 2

* Did not indicate using herbicides, insecticides, or fungicides

A-12

Table A14. Adoption of insecticide and fungicide best management practices (BMPs). Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado Use Among Respondents Using Insecticides and/or Fungicides (% using)

Pest Management Practices Residue Management 40 58 35 46 -- 23 37 Clean / Pure Seed 69 77 72 83 39 73 72 Resistant Varieties 46 63 67 51 30 44 51 Sanitation Practices 19 16 11 48 4 19 20 Pest Forecasting 17 17 10 32 -- 10 15 Crop Rotation 63 73 78 83 4 53 64 Field Scouting 67 82 65 78 30 53 65 Biological Controls 6 12 9 14 4 15 10 Adjust Planting / Harvest 18 27 16 27 9 18 19 Biotech Crops (GM) 10 41 37 -- -- 6 16 Mulching 22 11 14 17 -- 10 16

Pesticide Management Paid Crop Consultants 21 56 23 48 4 12 27 Dealer Representative 62 32 44 54 9 41 48 Economic Thresholds 51 60 59 54 13 34 49

Table A15. Adoption of herbicide best management practices (BMPs). Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Use Among Respondents Using Herbicides (% using) Pest Management Practices

Residue Management 34 55 35 40 4 16 30 Clean / Pure Seed 64 79 72 69 20 55 62 Crop Rotation 61 73 80 69 4 40 56 Adjust Planting / Harvest 17 29 19 19 2 15 17 Biotech Crops (GM) 9 38 37 -- -- 4 12 Mulching 18 10 11 14 2 7 12 Hand Hoeing / Rogueing 30 20 27 19 28 26 26 Cultivation 73 81 83 59 9 44 61

Pesticide Management Paid Crop Consultants 19 52 20 35 6 7 20 Dealer Representative 53 29 42 51 6 25 37 Banding / Spot App. 39 36 18 16 37 33 32

A-13

Table A16. General characteristics of representative field. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Field Size (acres) Average* 59 126 53 101 96 40 70

Soil Texture (% of respondents) Sandy 6 16 ** 11 11 4 7 Sandy to Loamy 40 41 26 40 27 12 29 Loamy 20 27 26 23 38 27 26 Loamy to Clay 13Clay 19

8 22 10 ** 13 11 7 22 11 20 39 24

** Five respondents or fewer in category

* Average of 1999 - 2001 irrigated acres

A-14

Table A17. Crops grown on representative field. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Percent (%) Respondents Growing Crop From Each Region 1999 Crops

Alfalfa / Hay 39 21 56 59 77 65 54 Corn Grain 33 58 22 ** ** 8 18 Grass Hay 6 ** ** 5 19 13 9 Other Crop 6 ** 9 ** ** 3 4 Wheat 3 7 ** 8 ** 3 4 Beans 5 7 ** ** ** 3 3 Barley ** ** ** 11 ** ** 2 Potatoes ** ** ** 12 ** ** 2 Corn Silage 3 ** ** ** ** 2 2 Pasture ** ** ** ** ** 2 1

2000 Crops Alfalfa / Hay 41 19 52 59 79 66 55 Corn Grain 28 57 27 ** ** 6 17 Grass Hay 7 ** ** 5 18 13 9 Other Crop 7 6 9 ** ** 2 4 Wheat 3 11 ** 5 ** 3 4 Beans 6 6 ** ** ** 5 4 Barley ** ** ** 16 ** ** 3 Potatoes ** ** ** 11 ** ** 2 Corn Silage 5 ** ** ** ** ** 2 Pasture ** ** ** ** ** 3 2

2001 Crops Alfalfa / Hay 45 19 50 58 79 69 56 Corn Grain 28 57 25 ** ** 6 17 Grass Hay 6 ** ** 5 18 12 9 Other Crop 5 8 13 5 ** 3 5 Wheat 5 10 ** 4 ** 3 4 Beans 2 ** ** ** ** 3 2 Barley 2 ** ** 13 ** ** 2 Potatoes ** ** ** 14 ** ** 2 Corn Silage 5 ** ** ** ** ** 2 Pasture ** ** ** ** ** 2 1

** Five respondents or fewer in category

A-15

Table A18. Yield of crops reported on representative field. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

--------------- Average Yield per Region ---------------1999 Crop

Alfalfa / Hay (ton/ac) 4.5 4.0 4.6 3.4 2.2 3.5 3.6 Barley (bu/ac) 105 ** ** 112 ** 115 111 Beans (bu/ac) 38 54 32 ** ** 30 39 Corn (bu/ac) 171 186 183 ** ** 175 177 Corn Silage (ton/ac) 26.0 ** ** ** ** 24.2 25.1 Grass Hay (ton/ac) 3.6 3.0 4.5 2.3 4.4 3.3 3.7 Pasture (ton/ac) 2.0 ** ** 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Potato (cwt/ac) 250 ** ** 369 ** ** 356 Wheat (bu/ac) 53 69 79 68 50 68 64

2000 Crop Alfalfa / Hay (ton/ac) 4.0 3.8 4.3 3.2 2.0 3.5 3.4 Barley (bu/ac) 96 ** ** 124 ** 100 118 Beans (bu/ac) 39 47 35 ** ** 25 35 Corn (bu/ac) 171 175 173 ** ** 194 175 Corn Silage (ton/ac) 24.2 ** ** ** ** ** 24.3 Grass Hay (ton/ac) 3.9 3.0 3.5 ** 4.5 3.0 3.6 Pasture (ton/ac) 1.0 ** ** ** 2.0 2.0 1.8 Potato (cwt/ac) ** ** ** 321 ** ** 321 Wheat (bu/ac) 79 58 60 80 ** 61 66

2001 Crop Alfalfa / Hay (ton/ac) 4.3 4.0 4.4 3.4 2.0 3.7 3.5 Barley (bu/ac) 96 ** ** 125 ** 128 117 Beans (bu/ac) 44 38 46 ** ** 27 38 Corn (bu/ac) 175 185 172 ** ** 201 180 Corn Silage (ton/ac) 25.0 ** ** ** ** ** 24.9 Grass Hay (ton/ac) 4.1 3.0 3.0 ** 4.1 4.6 4.1 Pasture (ton/ac) 2.0 ** ** ** 2.0 2.0 2.0 Potato (cwt/ac) 435 ** ** 334 ** ** 339 Wheat (bu/ac) 67 63 95 73 ** 66 66

** Five or fewer respondents in category *Some adjustments to actual responses were made to achieve these values.

Unreasonable or uninterpretable responses were excluded.

A-16

Table A19. Characteristics of water source for representative field. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Primary Water Source (%) Groundwater Well 43 90 33 54 15 13 38

% supplemental 22 4 59 34 16 13 21

Ditch Company 44 7 53 33 45 65 45 % supplemental 25 13 11 49 5 12 19

Individual Surface Diversion 13 3 14 13 40 22 18 % supplemental 18 33 0 47 37 35 31

Water Reliabilitya (%) (years out of 10)

10 51 68 35 56 31 40 46 9 5 3 5 4 4 7 5 8 11 3 10 10 17 12 11 7 5 2 8 7 13 9 7 6 3 3 8 4 7 5 5 5 4 4 11 4 7 6 5 Fewer than 5 19 16 23 16 21 22 20

a Number of years out of 10 that the water source provides a full water supply for the crop grown on the representative field.

A-17

Table A20. Well characteristics on representative field. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Those Pumping Ground Water: Depth to Water (%)

0 - 25 feet 21 5 27 38 ** ** 22 25 - 50 feet 31 5 40 20 ** ** 21 50 - 100 feet 34 16 10 18 ** ** 22 100 - 200 feet 13 37 3 6 ** ** 18 200 - 300 feet <1 27 7 5 ** ** 11 > 300 feet 0 10 13 12 ** ** 7

Well Pumping Capacity (%) 0 - 250 gpm 4 3 7 9 ** ** 5 250 - 500 gpm 7 21 27 2 ** ** 12 500 - 750 gpm 14 22 30 8 ** ** 16 750 - 1000 gpm 35 30 13 13 ** ** 25 1000 - 1500 gpm 26 18 10 47 ** ** 28 >1500 gpm 13 7 13 22 ** ** 14

Gallons/Minute/Acre (% fields) <2 gpm/acre 3 4 4 9 ** ** 5 <3 gpm/acre 1 5 4 4 ** ** 4 <4 gpm/acre 3 8 8 1 ** ** 4 <5 gpm/acre 5 12 4 4 ** ** 7 <6 gpm/acre 4 15 8 4 ** ** 7 >=6.0 gpm/acre 84 55 73 78 ** ** 73

Those with Sprinkler Systems: Well head Pressure (%)

0 - 10 psi 29 3 0 15 ** ** 13 10 - 20 psi 5 14 71 1 ** ** 9 20 - 30 psi 15 21 14 22 ** ** 20 30 - 40 psi 24 26 0 47 ** ** 31 40 - 50 psi 17 13 14 14 ** ** 14 >50 10 23 0 1 ** ** 13

A-18

Table A21. Irrigation systems used on representative field. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

---------- Percent Using System From Each Region ----------Ditch & Check 23 3 27 30 69 35 32 Center Pivot 23 81 6 51 4 4 22 Gated Pipe 15 6 33 3 5 30 18 Siphon Tubes 26 3 30 12 <1 9 15 Sideroll 2 3 <1 <1 3 17 6 Other Gravity 1 <1 2 1 9 2 2 Lay Flat / Coll. Pipe 7 <1 <1 <1 2 <1 2 Other System <1 <1 <1 2 5 1 2 Other Spinkler 1 3 <1 1 2 2 1 Drip Tube <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Avg. Age of System 25 19 27 30 67 27 32 ** Five or fewer respondents in category

Table A22. Average age of irrigation systems used on representative field. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

--------------- Average Years---------------Gated Pipe 12 21 15 14 13 10 12 Siphon Tubes 37 40 33 30 40 19 32 Ditch & Check 47 30 50 56 75 52 58 Lay Flat / Coll. Pipe 13 ** ** ** 40 20 17 Other Gravity 44 0 40 39 88 60 68 Center Pivot 10 18 9 16 11 11 14 Sideroll 14 16 ** ** 12 11 11 Other Sprinkler 11 33 ** 12 49 17 23 Drip Tube 10 ** 6 ** ** 10 8 Other System 7 ** 32 45 66 37 45 ** No Respondents in Category

A-19

Table A23. Reasons for amount applied at each irrigation by irrigation system and average number of applications. Irrigation System

Amount Ditch & Center Gated Siphon Other Lay Flat Other Other Drip Determination Check Pivot Pipe Tubes Sideroll Gravity Coll. Pipe System Sprinkler Tube

----------------- Percent (%) of Respondents Using ----------------Same Each Time 53 27 55 60 69 53 56 50 55 0 Replenish Crop Water Use 7 17 12 14 5 7 13 5 10 60

% ET Replenished 79 83 81 78 0 50 100 0 0 85 Replenish Soil Profile 7 21 10 8 8 0 6 5 10 20

% Soil Water Replen. 84 83 90 84 80 92 75 100 75 80 Other 31 10 20 16 16 40 25 35 25 20 Crop Consultant Determines 1 26 3 2 1 0 0 5 0 0

Average Number of Applications 5 13 5 5 6 7 10 5 5 34

A-20

Table A24. Number of applications in reference to representative field crop. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Crop ---------- Average Number of Applications ----------Alfalfa 6 6 3 8 7 6 6 Barley 5 -- 2 17 -- 6 13 Beans 5 9 6 -- -- 7 7 Corn 8 13 10 -- -- 7 10 Corn Silage 12 -- 3 -- -- 7 10 Grass Hay 3 2 7 5 6 7 6 Other 7 3 10 12 3 12 8 Pasture 3 -- -- -- 10 5 5 Potato -- -- -- 24 -- -- 23 Wheat 3 5 4 14 -- 4 5

Table A25. Respondents' reported water use by crop on representative field in 2001. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Crop -------------------- Inches --------------------Pasture ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Alfalfa 21 18 20 23 30 21 22 Corn 25 17 22 ** ** ** 21 Wheat 12 18 15 17 ** 38 21 Other Crop 16 5 13 22 ** 22 17 Barley 7 ** ** 18 ** ** 16 Potato ** ** ** 16 ** ** 16 Beans ** 18 ** ** ** 12 15 Corn Silage 7 ** ** ** ** ** 7 Grass Hay ** ** ** ** 1 ** 1 All Crops 19 16 19 19 24 23 20

** No response

A-21

Table A26. Respondents reporting change in management in last five years.Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis WesternPlatte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Percent of Respondents Reporting ChangeAll Categories 30 41 23 24 19 25 27

By Application SystemCenter Pivot 39 46 50 28 17 50 39Sideroll 14 ** ** ** ** 28 26Other Sprinkler ** ** ** ** ** 17 28Gated Pipe 35 17 25 ** 33 26 28Siphon Tubes 24 ** 21 24 ** 13 21Flood 18 ** 14 15 18 20 18

By Water SourceGroundwater 33 42 19 25 28 27 32Ditch Company 28 25 24 24 13 27 25Direct Diversion 35 ** 45 15 15 22 22

By 2001 CropBarley 50 ** ** 41 ** ** 38Other Crops 31 30 ** 40 ** 67 37Pasture 33 50 25 25 ** 33 36Corn (grain & silage) 34 43 28 ** ** 12 33Grass Hay 28 ** ** 17 23 33 28Beans 17 ** ** ** ** 10 27Wheat ** ** ** 26 ** ** 25Alfalfa & Hay 26 42 18 20 19 24 23Potatoes ** ** ** ** ** <1 17

Type of Change ImplementedWater System 36 25 33 28 61 31 34Water Management 14 25 29 28 18 17 19Crop Mgmt 20 13 13 8 11 25 18Tillage Change 13 23 13 6 0 8 12Fertilizer Mgmt 9 10 8 14 4 13 10Other 8 4 4 17 7 6 7

** Five respondents or fewer in category

A-22

Table A27. Sources regularly used for irrigation and/or crop production information. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

Irrigation Percent (%) Using Water Dist / Ditch Co. 42 8 37 33 25 41 35 Neighbors 18 17 17 21 26 25 21 Irrigation Equip. Dealer 16 26 8 13 6 18 15 NRCS (formerly SCS) 8 10 15 13 21 22 15 Paid Crop Consultant 8 48 16 21 0 1 12 CSU / Coop. Ext. 7 13 7 16 13 12 11 Chemical Dealer / Applicator 10 21 8 7 4 8 9 Soil Testing Lab 8 26 10 7 6 6 9 Popular Farm Press 10 11 6 9 7 7 8 Other 7 4 9 9 13 7 8 Seed Dealer 5 10 8 3 0 4 5 Other Internet Sources 4 6 3 6 1 2 4

Crop Production Percent (%) Using Chemical Dealer / Applicator 63 61 52 36 13 35 44 Soil Testing Lab 51 57 33 42 19 28 38 Seed Dealer 41 44 43 14 11 27 30 Neighbors 23 30 35 30 22 34 28 CSU / Coop. Ext. 16 32 14 21 23 26 22 Popular Farm Press 18 21 15 13 13 15 16 NRCS (formerly SCS) 10 10 13 18 21 15 14 Paid Crop Consultant 11 44 14 24 1 2 13 Water Dist / Ditch Co. 12 0 14 14 5 14 11 Other 8 8 9 10 21 12 11 Other Internet Sources 6 9 7 10 1 4 6 Irrigation Equip. Dealer 5 8 3 3 4 7 5

A-23

Table A28. Factors limiting crop production and/or irrigation decisions. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

--------------- Percent Limiting ---------------Water Availability 63 48 83 60 70 61 64 Equipment Cost 40 50 33 34 22 42 37 Management Time 33 24 19 32 27 30 29 Labor Cost 30 26 29 22 22 31 27 Other 13 22 9 19 22 12 16 Lack of Information 7 4 4 5 4 7 6 Lender 4 10 6 7 3 3 5 Landlord 7 6 2 2 4 2 4

A-24

Table A29. Water quality concerns by type of water source. Water Source

Mixed Water Ground Water Surface Water Water Quality Concerns ------------------------- Percent (%) -------------------------

Crop Production 40 33 35 Household Use 23 22 25 Livestock 31 42 31 Other 6 4 9

Table A30. Average time since irrigation water analyzed. Region

South Eastern Arkansas San Luis Western Years Ago Platte Plains Valley Valley Mountains Slope Colorado

------------------------- Percent (%) -------------------------0 to 2 38 29 25 40 22 13 33 3 to 5 30 26 38 33 33 40 31 6 to 10 16 15 17 16 44 7 17 > 10 16 29 21 12 0 40 20

A-25

Table A31. Number of Surveys Mailed by County and Farm Sizea

Farm Size (acres)

All FarmsRegion/CountyUnder 100

100 to 249

250 to 499

500 to 999

1000 to 2499

2500 to 4999

Over 5000

Colorado 373 686 634 591 549 246 189 3,268

South Platte 151 221 172 177 107 38 30 896Adams 2 5 3 5 3 2 4 24Boulder 17 17 3 4 3 2 0 46Denver 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Jefferson 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2Larimer 20 34 27 17 11 5 8 122Logan 5 16 15 22 20 9 4 91Morgan 14 47 42 32 25 9 7 176Sedgwick 2 1 1 4 6 4 0 18Weld 90 99 81 93 39 7 7 416

Eastern Plains 1 17 38 59 118 85 50 368Arapahoe 0 2 2 1 5 2 2 14Baca 0 2 5 12 17 12 4 52Cheyenne 0 0 1 2 6 8 9 26Douglas 0 2 3 4 1 1 0 11El Paso 1 1 2 3 4 1 3 15Elbert 0 2 0 1 4 3 5 15Kit Carson 0 0 5 4 20 13 9 51Lincoln 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 7Phillips 0 3 4 5 13 5 3 33Washington 0 4 7 12 15 17 7 62Yuma 0 1 9 15 32 21 4 82

Arkansas Valley 30 47 69 48 47 19 23 283Bent 0 6 14 9 12 4 3 48Crowley 0 1 6 1 5 2 3 18Kiowa 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 8Las Animas 3 2 6 9 2 1 4 27Otero 19 21 29 11 7 0 2 89Prowers 2 4 7 8 13 9 5 48Pueblo 6 13 7 9 7 1 2 45

San Luis Valley 30 91 116 127 110 27 12 513Alamosa 4 20 16 23 23 4 1 91Conejos 12 29 40 33 21 6 4 145Costilla 5 13 6 12 8 4 2 50Rio Grande 6 22 33 38 27 7 0 133Saguache 3 7 21 21 31 6 5 94

(continued)

A-26

Table A31 continued.Farm Size (acres)

All FarmsRegion/CountyUnder 100

100 to 249

250 to 499

500 to 999

1000 to 2499

2500 to 4999

Over 5000

Mountains 33 78 66 64 80 39 29 389Chaffee 5 13 13 5 4 1 1 42Clear Creek 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Custer 1 5 5 6 5 1 2 25Eagle 4 10 1 5 4 0 2 26Fremont 0 10 5 1 7 5 2 30Grand 2 3 6 9 13 7 5 45Gunnison 6 8 11 8 12 4 3 52Hinsdale 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3Huerfano 1 4 3 2 6 1 1 18Jackson 0 1 2 7 4 7 2 23Lake 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2Mineral 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ouray 0 2 4 4 4 3 2 19Park 0 3 3 1 2 2 4 15Pitkin 2 4 3 1 1 1 0 12Routt 10 13 7 12 16 5 4 67Summit 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 4Teller 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 5

Western Slope 128 232 173 116 87 38 45 819Archuleta 3 3 4 4 3 1 1 19Delta 33 49 36 11 11 3 4 147Dolores 0 1 3 6 7 1 3 21Garfield 7 11 5 11 12 3 6 55La Plata 25 43 28 23 7 8 3 137Mesa 27 35 23 9 4 3 7 108Moffat 1 0 6 7 4 5 9 32Montezuma 8 26 24 12 16 2 0 88Montrose 20 51 33 28 15 5 2 154Rio Blanco 3 9 10 5 8 6 6 47San Miguel 1 4 1 0 0 1 4 11

Colorado 373 686 634 591 549 246 189 3,268a County and farm size identified from National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) database prior to mailing.

A-27

Table A32. Number of Usable Responses by County and Farm Sizea

Farm Size (acres)

All FarmsRegion/CountyUnder 100

100 to 249

250 to 499

500 to 999

1000 to 2499

2500 to 4999

Over 5000

Size not Provided

Colorado 166 301 227 192 181 80 45 29 1,221

South Platte 51 106 42 51 34 17 11 6 318Adams 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 6Boulder 6 13 3 2 4 2 0 1 31Larimer 6 13 6 9 2 5 3 0 44Logan 2 7 5 6 4 2 2 1 29Morgan 7 16 11 12 5 1 3 1 56Sedgwick 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3Weld 30 55 17 20 17 6 1 3 149

Eastern Plains 2 10 9 23 37 21 10 2 114Arapahoe 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 6Baca 0 3 2 6 1 2 1 0 15Cheyenne 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 5Douglas 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4El Paso 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 5Elbert 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 5Kit Carson 0 1 2 2 5 1 2 0 13Lincoln 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Phillips 0 2 1 1 8 1 0 0 13Washington 0 1 1 2 2 6 1 0 13Yuma 0 1 2 9 9 9 2 2 34

Arkansas Valley 14 23 32 16 15 4 7 2 113Bent 0 0 6 2 1 2 0 0 11Crowley 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 7Kiowa 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2Las Animas 2 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 9Otero 7 12 15 2 3 0 0 0 39Prowers 0 2 2 3 7 1 5 1 21Pueblo 5 6 5 5 2 0 0 1 24

San Luis Valley 14 29 33 39 34 6 1 6 162Alamosa 2 8 5 7 9 0 0 0 31Conejos 4 8 8 11 6 2 0 1 40Costilla 3 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 17Rio Grande 2 8 14 8 10 1 0 2 45Saguache 3 2 3 9 6 2 1 3 29

(continued)

A-28

Table A32 continued.Farm Size (acres)

All FarmsUnder 100

100 to 249

250 to 499

500 to 999

1000 to 2499

2500 to 4999

Over 5000

Size not Provided

Region/CountyMountains 11 30 31 21 38 17 8 6 162

Chaffee 3 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 14Custer 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 6Eagle 2 7 1 0 1 0 1 0 12Fremont 0 4 2 0 5 2 0 1 14Grand 1 2 2 2 10 1 0 1 19Gunnison 3 3 3 5 5 2 2 0 23Huerfano 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 6Jackson 0 1 1 3 2 4 1 1 13Lake 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Mineral 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1Ouray 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 9Park 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 1 8Pitkin 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3Routt 2 4 5 5 8 1 1 2 28Summit 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 4Teller 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Western Slope 74 103 80 42 23 15 8 7 352Archuleta 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 7Delta 19 23 12 2 5 1 1 1 64Dolores 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 8Garfield 4 1 8 6 5 3 2 1 30La Plata 16 13 12 8 2 1 1 0 53Mesa 14 19 15 4 1 1 2 1 57Moffat 1 2 4 1 1 6 0 0 15Montezuma 3 13 6 10 2 2 0 2 38Montrose 12 21 14 5 3 1 0 1 57Rio Blanco 4 6 4 3 2 0 1 0 20San Miguel 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3

Colorado 166 301 227 192 181 80 45 1,221a County and farm size determined from survey replies.

A-29

B-1

Appendix B Survey Instrument Used

B-2

Survey of Irrigated Crop Production

in Colorado

Colorado State University Cooperative Extension

Colorado Department of Agriculture

B-3

Dear Survey Respondent: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to complete this survey. It should take about 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Please attempt to answer every question in the survey. However, if you cannot or do not wish to answer a particular question, please skip it and proceed through the remainder of the questionnaire. When you have completed the survey, please return it in the envelope provided. No stamp is required as postage has been prepaid. Your response is anonymous. This questionnaire is not marked in any way that would allow us to identify who you are. If you have any questions or comments regarding this survey, please don’t hesitate to call us collect. Thank you! Reagan Waskom Troy Bauder (970) 491-2947 (970) 491-4923

B-4

General Farm Information 1. In what county is the majority of your farm

located? county

2. What is the total size of your farm? acres 3. List your major farm enterprises:

Crop Number of Acres*

Percent Irrigated Livestock Type Peak #

of Head

*Total number of dryland and irrigated acres. 4. What portion of your irrigated acres are

rented or leased from someone else? % OR acres

5. Approximately what percentage of irrigation water used on your farm comes from the following sources?

(allocations should total 100 percent)

Groundwater well % Surface water %

6. What is the depth to water in your farmstead well? ft.

No well exists.

B-5

Irrigation System(s) on Whole Farm 1. Approximately what percentage of the irrigated acres on your farm are serviced by each of the following types of irrigation systems? (should total 100 percent)

Gravity: gated pipe % Sprinkler: center pivot % siphon tubes % sideroll % ditch and check % other sprinkler % lay flat/collapsible pipe % Drip tube (surface or buried) % other gravity % Other %

2. Check T all irrigation components used on your farm:

Surge valves Polyacryamides (PAM) Drop nozzles Field leveling Flow meters Low pressure nozzles (<25 psi) Lined ditches Computerized panel None of these used Flume or weir LEPA Other

3. Check T the primary and secondary scheduling method(s) that you use to determine when to irrigate on

your farm:

Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Fixed number of days Paid crop consultant Ditch schedule Atmometer (ET gage) Soil probe Gypsum blocks Tensiometers Computer program Weather station ET Experience Crop appearance Other

B-6

Fertilizer Management on Whole Farm

1. With respect to your nutrient (fertilizer) management do you ..…(check T all that apply)

Keep written records Use variable rate application (VRT) Establish crop yield goals Use soil test analysis to determine fertilizer rate Take plant tissue samples Use dealer rep for fertilizer recommendation Use paid crop consultant None of these used Deep soil test Other

2. Do you use livestock manure or effluent for fertilizer?

Yes No… go to question 3 If yes, how do you determine your application rate? (check T all that apply)

Soil test analysis Manure nutrient table values Use paid crop consultant Manure analysis Same amount each time None of these are used Spreader capacity Use all manure from pens Other

3. Do you reduce your N fertilizer or manure rate for any of the following?

Approximate reduction? Previous manure application lbs N/ton Previous legume crop lbs N/acre Irrigation water nitrate lbs N/acre Consultant determines None of these used

4. If you soil test, approximately what percent of your irrigated acreage was soil sampled in: 2001: % last 3 years: % 5. Check T all the methods that you use to apply N fertilizer:

Fall preplant Sidedress Do not apply commercial N fertilizer Spring preplant Fertigate None of these application methods Planting (starter) Topdress Other

B-7

Pest Management on Whole Farm 1. Check T all pest management practices that you routinely use: (Include all weed, insect, and disease controls)

Residue management Biological controls Clean/pure seed Adjust planting/harvest dates Fungicides Biotech crops(GM) Resistant varieties Mulching Sanitation practices Herbicides Pest forecasting Hand hoeing/rogueing Crop rotation Cultivation Field scouting None of these used Insecticides Other ____________

2. With respect to your pest management program do you… (check T all that apply)

Keep pest records Use paid crop consultants for pest scouting and management advice Use dealer representative for pest scouting and management advice Keep pesticide records Use economic thresholds to determine pesticide application timing Use banding or spot application as opposed to broadcast application None of these used Other _______________________________________

B-8

Representative Irrigated Field Questions The following questions target a specific field that you farm. Select ONE irrigated field that is most representative of your irrigated farm acres. Please answer all questions in this section thinking only about this representative field. 1. What is the predominant soil texture of the representative field? (i.e. sandy loam, clay, etc) ________________________________________ 2. What crops have been grown over the last three years on the representative field? 1999 2000 2001 Crop Yield/acre estimate

3. Check T the irrigation water source(s) used on the representative field.

Groundwater well Ditch company Individual surface diversion Primary Supplemental

If well is used: Well capacity? gpm

Depth to water? feet Pressure at well? psi 4. How many years out of 10 (0 to 10) are the primary and supplemental water sources

together able to provide a full water supply for the crops grown on the representative field? years.

5. Check T the irrigation application system used on the representative field.

gated pipe center pivot siphon tubes sideroll ditch & check other sprinkler lay flat/collapsible pipe drip tube (buried or surface) other gravity ___________ Other system __________

6. How long ago was this system installed? years

B-9

2001 Irrigation Management of the Representative Field 1. How did you determine the amount of water to apply at each irrigation on the representative field?

Always applied the same amount each time Crop consultant determined the quantity applied Replenished crop water use since last irrigation What portion? % ET Replenish soil profile to a given level What level? % available water capacity Other (specify)________________________________________________

2. How many irrigation applications were made to the

representative field throughout 2001? applications

3. How much water was applied to the representative field throughout the 2001 growing

season?

inches/acre gals/acre acre feet/acre Don’t know 4. Did you keep records of water applied throughout the season? YES NO 5. Do you know how much water the crop used (ET) in 2001?

No Yes inches

6. Have you changed any management practices on the representative field in the last five years?

No Yes, list:

This ends the questions about your representative field. Please answer the remainder of the survey based upon the management of your whole farm

B-10

Water and Crop Management Decisions on Whole Farm 1. Check T all the sources that you regularly use for irrigation and/or crop production information: Irrigation Crop production Irrigation Crop production

Chemical dealer/applicator Paid crop consultant Neighbors NRCS (formerly SCS) Soil testing lab Water district/Ditch Company CSU/Cooperative Extension Popular farm press Irrigation equipment dealer Seed dealer Other internet sources Other________________

2. What are the main factors that limit crop production or irrigation decisions on your farm? (check T all

that apply)

Management time Lack of information Labor cost Landlord Equipment cost Water availability Lender Other ___________________

3. What information from CSU would be most useful for making water management decisions? Please

describe: _________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

B-11

Water Concerns 1. Have you ever had your irrigation water analyzed?

year Yes L When:

No 2. Are there any concerns about the quality of the water on your farm?

No Yes: for crop production for livestock for household use other ____________________

3. Check T any concerns that you have about water on your farm and/or in your county:

on your farm

in your county

on your farm

in your county

erosion/sediment water availability metals bacteria/pathogens regulations fertilizer urban runoff salinity (salts) manure runoff drought selenium urban competition weed seeds none nitrate other ____________

Personal Information 1. How many years of irrigation experience do you have? years 2. Check T your highest level of education.

High School Bachelors degree Some college Graduate or Professional degree Technical/Vocational Degree

3. Check T your estimated annual gross farm sales.

less than $50,000 $250,000 - $499,000 $50,000 - $99,000 $500,000 - $1,000,000 $100,000 - $249,000 over $1,000,000

4. Do you have another job off the farm?

No Yes What percentage of your net income comes from farming? %

THANK YOU very much for taking the time to answer this questionnaire. Your response will be kept confidential. Please return the completed survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Feel free to use the space below to give us any comments you may have.